Contents

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

In Section C, tiny House, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 7.

In the Douglas Fir Room…. I will not make the same mistake. It is bill…. No, it’s not. It’s estimates of WLRS, of water, land….

Interjections.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes, I know. I know. Bill 5 has been driving me nuts all day.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs
(continued)

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We are going to call this House back to order. We are, of course, considering the estimates of the Housing and Municipal Affairs Ministry.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued).

Rob Botterell: One of the areas that comes into play in our efforts to address the housing crisis in this province, particularly as it relates to renters, is the policy option of rent control and, in particular, vacancy control.

My question to the minister is: does the minister’s housing plan include any form of rent control and, in particular, vacancy control, that could moderate rent increases overall and limit evictions-for-profit to protect renters?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, thank you, Member, for the question.

Just previous to lunch, we were discussing the many measures we’ve taken to ensure protection for renters. I mentioned that in order to do those changes, we had created a task force which included the member’s predecessor, the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture and the former MLA for Courtenay-Comox, where they travelled the province to identify what the greatest needs were, what could work, but used data to help advise us on what measures we should be doing as we go forward. On the question of vacancy control, that report, that task force recommended against it. They recommended against moving in that direction.

We know that New York, for example, has vacancy control, but they are facing some serious challenges right now around…. Because of vacancy control, those buildings are not seeing the investments to be fixed up, and it’s causing additional challenges in the community. Because of that recommendation, government made a clear commitment that we were not going to proceed in that direction.

We do have protections in place. Right now rents are limited to be increased to CPI. We release that number every year so that there’s some protection for renters. Landlords have the ability to increase rents above that if they need to do renovations of their properties. But they apply, and they get permission given to them. So we have systems in place to ensure some protections, unlike a few provinces that exist.

Of course, as I mentioned to the member before the break, one of the most important things we can do to help renters, to give renters power in the marketplace, is by increasing supply. That’s the work that we’ve been doing as a government.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

I’ll illustrate the basis for the next question with an example, but there are examples, I expect, throughout the province that the minister hears about on a regular basis and we all hear about on a regular basis.

[1:10 p.m.]

On Salt Spring Island, in my riding, there is a massive housing crisis. The result is, because of the lack of affordable housing, that we have over 100 boats in the harbour where individuals are living aboard the boats because that’s the only accommodation they can find. This amount of boats — sailboats, all sorts of boats — in the harbour is causing significant environmental impact. Actually, recently a couple of the boats have sunk in the harbour.

The people living aboard those boats are not living there out of choice. They’re living there because there is not access to affordable housing on Salt Spring Island.

To complicate matters further on Salt Spring, there are a large number of individuals and families who are living in trailers and other types of accommodation that is far from being healthy and safe but is effectively the only accommodation that they can afford that is available.

So that just has created a huge housing crisis, and it impacts people on Salt Spring who work on Salt Spring, work in shops on Salt Spring. It’s not about accommodating an influx; it’s about the people who are on Salt Spring right now.

The question that keeps coming up when I meet with Salt Spring residents and constituents is…. There’s not an infinite budget to tackle the housing crisis, and there is a process through B.C. Housing which is entirely appropriate, that is at arm’s length. The question that keeps coming up from constituents is: how are funds allocated between rural communities and urban communities and within rural communities to tackle this issue?

There’s a concern on Salt Spring that they have a housing crisis. What are the criteria in terms of the funds that could be available for eligible projects? For the constituents that are listening in to this or are attending community meetings, it would be helpful to have an explanation of how that allocation decision is made, not for an individual project but for rural versus urban and within rural.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you to the member for raising some of the complexities that the member is seeing in his community and the things that he is hearing.

I am certainly aware of the challenges that are faced on Salt Spring. I had many opportunities to engage with the member, of course, on this topic, and his predecessor as well. Add to that the complexity of how difficult it is to actually build housing on Salt Spring Island. It adds to the challenge.

I can share a couple of things with the member. I can share with the member that Salt Spring, the elected officials there, are apprised of the situation. They’re seeing the benefit of the short-term rentals registry and the actions we’ve taken on short-term rentals across the province. They have actually written to us requesting that we include them in the principal residence requirement.

They see an opportunity for them to have more housing. They see the challenge, which is a lot of people are buying up properties in their communities. The people locally can’t find housing, and they can’t find a workforce to operate the businesses. It’s having a huge impact, as the member has rightfully raised. So Salt Spring has asked for that. That’s something that I’m considering at this time. And I think that will help. That will help immediately for that community.

The second thing I can share with the member is that we have made investments to the question around how we decide between rural communities and non-rural communities. I think it’s important to note that we don’t fund just affordable housing in cities. We do fund housing in rural communities.

[1:15 p.m.]

I can share with the member that we have opened 80 units of housing over the last few years on Salt Spring. We have opened 22 units on Croftonbrook, phase 2. We have opened another 34 units at Croftonbrook, phase 3. The member will probably be aware of the Salt Spring Commons — that’s 176 Bishops Walk Road, 24 units there of affordable housing; and we have right now under construction some units on Drake Road, as the member’s probably aware as well. Also, we have supportive housing at that site. So there are about 32 units that are under development right now on that site.

Of course, we want to look for more opportunities. I shared with members yesterday that part of the learning that B.C. Housing has put in, some of the feedback they’ve put in is that now the community housing fund applications will be, so to speak, rolling, so that if someone applies and they are not successful, they have an opportunity still within that approximate year to apply again by updating their application.

We are trying to be as flexible as we can because at the end of the day, we want to see housing, and we want to see all communities see the benefit of that. Those flexibilities are built into this.

I appreciate the member’s comments around the fairness piece. All the decisions go through a fairness commissioner so that it’s clear that these decisions are being made with a data-informed lens.

Rob Botterell: It would be helpful to understand in a bit more detail for Salt Spring constituents. I certainly appreciate the projects that have just been referenced in relation to Salt Spring.

Right now the Islands Trust on Salt Spring has in effect put a moratorium on enforcement of bylaws in relation to various units that would be out of compliance, because to enforce the bylaws would effectively put constituents into a homeless situation.

The contribution that’s been made is certainly much appreciated. The question I’m curious about is that…. If there are, say, roughly 1,500 Salt Spring Islanders who are living on boats or in trailers that are not safe, and so on, that’s a large number of residents that we need to address. The short-term rental registry decision or request certainly helps in part.

The question that I’d appreciate some further guidance on is: if there were $200 million, as a hypothetical, available for affordable housing in rural communities around the province, leaving aside specific applications, how is that allocated? What are the criteria governing the allocation of those funds in particular envelopes for particular parts of rural B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s a fair question. It’s one of the discussions that we’ve had. In fact, we made this change with the last CHF call. We heard from many not-for-profits that there was a concern that they didn’t want to be competing against Vancouver, because Vancouver had the greater capacity to have better applications, have more dollars to put in, etc.

So last CHF call we made the change to have a certain amount of allocated units per region and then the applications are only competing against their region. They’re not competing against the entire province. We saw some good success with that.

Our intention is, with the next CHF call, to do a similar thing. I can’t give the member the exact breakdown numbers for the next CHF call — we’re still in development — but we will use the same formula to ensure that there’s a region and there’s an allocation of units, and then the competition is within that region. So the region benefits by knowing they’re going to be having those many units going forward.

[1:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: In a couple of examples that I was provided by constituents in the riding last year was that the call for proposals…. They learned later on, after making the proposal or the application, that they would have had a better chance of succeeding if they had teamed up with a First Nation or an Indigenous partner as opposed to proceeding without the benefit of an Indigenous partner. It was a bit of “hindsight is 20-20,” as far as they were concerned.

I’m just wondering if there are ways to ensure that potential applicants are aware of those criteria before they apply so they can put the best possible application forward.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We do provide feedback to anyone that’s not successful.

Although I can’t comment on a specific application — we don’t have enough of the information — there are usually various reasons why some projects don’t score as high. If you’ve got significant housing pressures…. We know that often there’s a disproportionate impact felt by Indigenous communities; by, say, racialized communities. That is one of the reasons why the feedback may have been that way. Again I’m presuming, because I wasn’t present in those discussions.

One of the main things that we do look at, though, is: is a project shovel-ready? Do they have council on board? Do they have the approvals? Are they ready to go? That’s a challenge that some proponents have when they come forward, that they don’t have that. They don’t have the zoning done. They’re not prepared in that sense. They’re prepared because they want to see it happen, but they don’t have all the ducks in a row.

We always advise anyone that is considering to apply to meet with their local council. My experience has been that…. I would say a majority of councils that I’ve been able to work with, when they know it’s an affordable housing project, will do what they can to prepare to get that there. That is an instrumental piece.

Again, I’m not saying that’s the specific case, but generally, that’s some of the feedback we provide. And if anyone doesn’t succeed, we do provide them information about what they could do to strengthen their application and be prepared for future calls.

Rob Botterell: I will switch my line of questioning momentarily. But I do have one other question, which is…. Through this process of applying and having a project that’s shovel-ready, there can be instances where the local government — whether it’s a municipality, whether it’s the Islands Trust — has provided all the land use planning approvals necessary, and these non-profits have put the effort in, often with the support of the province, to prepare the application.

It’s not unlike a real estate transaction with subject-to clauses. The way I mean that is that it may be 99 percent shovel-ready, but there is a need to…. And the getting it to 100 percent is, partially, having the tentative approval from B.C. Housing, which then enables the non-profit to deal with another issue.

[1:25 p.m.]

I’ll give you an example. There’s a project in my constituency which is shovel-ready that could make an application tomorrow. There is a road access issue where the applicant, the non-profit, will be able to get the funding to build that road access, but it’s contingent on knowing that B.C. Housing approval is in place. So it’s a bit chicken-
and-egg.

I’m just curious how B.C. Housing and the minister deal with those sorts of situations where it’s very real that it will get funded, that additional bit of infrastructure, but everybody needs to know that the project has been approved. Then the funding will come from that, not from the province but from private donors.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: One of the reasons why we have, now, a rolling call is to address those types of challenges, where you’re almost there, but you’re not quite there. And now it’s…. Because there’s going to be some steady rollout to it, it gives those types of situations the opportunity.

There also are challenges where local governments say: “Well, we approve of the housing, but we don’t yet approve the people.” That’s something we have to push back against as best we can: where everyone is supportive of the housing until they find out what incomes people are coming in with. Then they stigmatize people; they stigmatize the project. So those are some of the challenges that we try to deal with.

For us, of course, we want to see an understanding from the local government that, yes, they want that housing. They understand that there are going to be some more vulnerable people, low-income seniors, etc. But the rolling call will help. We’ll have to navigate any challenges that come, but I think that’ll be an important step to help along the way.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

House Leader of the Third Party.

Rob Botterell: One of the things I like about estimates is hearing my name as House Leader mentioned repeatedly through the afternoon. It almost makes me wish I could ask 100 questions rather than maybe only 25 or 30. It’s very good for my heart. Thank you.

One of the items that I’m sure has been canvassed prior to this section of the estimates but I think would be helpful to maybe summarize or go through in some detail is the issue of municipal infrastructure.

Now we have a government in place federally, with Prime Minister Carney, that certainly has indicated a high degree of ambition to address housing and infrastructure needs across Canada.

In the case of municipal infrastructure and local government infrastructure, there are going to be a couple of different situations. There will be the situation, which we’ve canvassed in previous parts of these estimates, where the infrastructure is already in place. There’s overcrowding in housing. So the infrastructure — whether it’s sewer, water or whatever it is — is already servicing the community. It’s more about creating a healthy, safe housing environment than it is about lack of actual infrastructure.

It’s also about, for affordable housing, ensuring we’re accommodating residents that are already in the community. This isn’t about creating the infrastructure to support an influx of new $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million houses in a part of a community where more individuals are coming. This is about folks that are already there. They want to work in the community, and they’re looking for affordable housing.

[1:30 p.m.]

From the municipality’s perspective or the local government’s perspective, there’s an infrastructure gap. The UBCM estimates that municipalities need $24 billion during the next decade just to replace core infrastructure and how they will accommodate infrastructure upgrades that are reasonably needed to support the housing growth that is resulting from this government’s, I would say, innovative policies.

What is the government’s plan to address the infrastructure deficit in municipalities?

Secondly, what is the government’s plan of action in terms of engagement with the federal government to ensure that the federal government steps up to the table to help close that gap as well?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll start by saying I thank the House Leader of the Third Party. I think I’ll just make a comment on that, which is to say, we forget how big of an honour it is to be in this place.

When you hear the MLA from Abbotsford, the MLA from White Rock…. When you hear these things, it’s our reminder that we have an honour to serve the people of this province. So for you to take a moment to reflect on that, I think, is something we all appreciate on this side and something all of us should appreciate because we’re here temporarily. I appreciate your comment on that.

Part of the changes we made last year around small-scale, multi-unit, around transit-oriented development was on the principle that the best use of our existing infrastructure is housing where the infrastructure already exists. Our legislation was built around the notion of not wanting to encourage sprawl beyond where communities had already decided their growth — urban containment areas.

We have seen research, Metro Vancouver had research, that showed that this type of housing was the best use of the existing infrastructure to get more housing.

We have, as the member has asked, had a really good relationship with the federal government when it comes to infrastructure. We always want more. It always feels like it’s not enough. Whether it’s our government or it’s the government before us, there’s been a lot of work to align our programs with the federal government, because local governments find it frustrating to have to apply one place and then try to piecemeal it from another level of government.

We had two funds in particular. One was provincial. We provided $1 billion, part of the growing communities fund, to local governments. We didn’t prescribe what they could use the money for. Local governments made a decision of where they wanted to allocate those dollars.

For example, in the member’s community, Sidney was provided $3.82 million, and I believe they did some work with the waterfront washrooms, the Philip Brethour Park playground, Beacon West roundabout. They put those dollars to use to help improve the infrastructure. That work’s happening.

One of the important pieces that…. Infrastructure is definitely on the top of our list in our discussions with the federal government. It was on the top of the list before; it’s on the top of the list now. I shared with members yesterday that our top asks to the federal government are infrastructure dollars. Money around Indigenous housing is one of those top priorities as well. We’ll see what they come through with. Our goal will be to try to align as best we can with them.

The federal government had a community housing infrastructure fund. The federal government launched this in, I think it was, May or June last year. We spent a lot of time negotiating with the federal government around how we could contribute to that pot of money and leverage that for local governments. We were not successful. We were not successful in the entirety of the fund.

[1:35 p.m.]

The federal government was able to get Metro Vancouver $250 million, on the condition that Metro Vancouver agreed to put two-year in-stream protection in place, so that more projects could proceed, and make some changes to how DCCs are collected. That was an example of how you can make sure local governments have infrastructure dollars but, at the same time, ensure that projects can still pencil and proceed.

We tried to negotiate for the rest of those dollars, but we were unsuccessful, mainly because we couldn’t agree with the criteria that were set.

They were hoping for a three-year freeze of DCCs across the province, and local governments have greater infrastructure needs than the dollars the federal government was willing to put to the table. So we advised them that it’s best that they work with local governments directly.

That being said, that was before the election. It was a different government, different Prime Minister. I’m looking forward, when a new Minister of Housing or a new Minister of Infrastructure is announced, to be able to have a meeting at their earliest convenience to discuss how we can continue to build our infrastructure to support housing in our communities.

Rob Botterell: In the work that UBCM has done, they have identified the gap as being $24 billion over the next ten years.

To the minister: is that in accord with your understanding of the funding gap we need to close? As a second part of that question, are there options to develop a more consistent and reliable funding formula rather than a grant-based system of infrastructure funding?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s hard to get to an exact number. Many variables are linked to why it’s a challenge. One is that local governments’ needs change often. They could identify certain amenities they need, some sewer and water infrastructure upgrades they need. There are some communities that have needs and some that have wants, because they have desires to grow their community in a certain way.

It’s ever changing, so it’s hard to come to an exact number of what it is. But there are significant needs in community. Part of our discussion with the federal government will be: well, how do we have something consistent that can support communities as they grow?

Of course, local governments also depend on DCCs and ACCs. Maybe it’s a good time to touch on that, which is just to say that there have been challenges from local government on how they collect fees. Those in the home-building community argue — and I think, in some cases, justifiably — that the fees are just too high to have anything be built in the community.

Part of our changes was to make a shift from how housing decisions are made. This is prior to this new session. We brought in legislation to change that. Because we have moved to more pre-planning, now communities are required, every five years, to update their official community plans. Engage with the community: where do you want the housing, where do you want the parks, and where do you want the amenities?

Any project that comes forward that fits within what the community had agreed upon doesn’t have public hearings anymore. That means that the ability to negotiate and extract dollars is not the same. The ACC tool allows local governments to still collect dollars for amenities, but they’re required now to identify what the amenities are and put it into their bylaws so everyone knows the money’s going to this.

They are allowed to charge for net new. So you can’t say, “There are ten units; we’re going to build ten units,” and, all of a sudden, you have to pay for the new playground for new people when the amount of people is the same. So it’s net new, and the fees are more transparent.

I think that’s good for the home-building community. I think it’s good for elected officials, too, because the number one thing I hear from people, and I think mostly unjustifiable, mostly not correct — maybe in some cases it is correct — is that one developer is getting a better deal than another one because all of this is being negotiated behind closed doors, not in public.

There’s always this doubt in people’s minds: “Why are they doing that for that developer, and they are not doing it for this?” or “What kind of arrangement do they support financially?” I think that undermines our democracy. To have an ability for a local government to say, “These are the amenities we want in our communities. Here are the dollars we need. Here’s what we’re going to need to collect per unit for net new units,” and be transparent about it, I think it’s better for everybody.

[1:40 p.m.]

That’s the direction we’re heading. I think that certainty will help everyone involved. It helps the local government, and it helps the people in our community to understand that these are the amenities that we’re prioritizing.

It is a holistic change from how things have been done. If you include additional dollars…. We provided $1 billion last year, directly to local governments as well as First Nations, for infrastructure. That’s a significant investment, some of the largest investments ever made, in fact, for infrastructure.

Then add on top of that the investments we’re making in transit, the investments we’re making into 911 calling, the investments we’re making direct into water and sewer facilities. We continue to make historic investments, and we’re going to continue to do more, but it’s going to involve a partnership with the federal government.

Rob Botterell: One of the approaches that has been taken in other jurisdictions around Canada — and, certainly, south of the border as well — goes by various names, so I’ll just describe it. When you put in major infrastructure — for example, a SkyTrain line or a new road through an area — it can often raise the land values in the adjacent properties. What in effect happens is that the landowners adjacent to the corridor receive a windfall in terms of the value of the property.

One of the measures that other jurisdictions have taken — maybe it’s happening in B.C., and I’m unaware of it — is that there are tax policies and approaches taken to recover some of that windfall. Effectively, what has happened is that the public have subsidized, through their taxes, the upgrade in infrastructure, but the benefit goes to adjacent properties. Really, it would be appropriate, from a public policy point of view, that some of that windfall, if you will, be returned to defray the cost of the upgrade of the infrastructure.

My question to the minister is: has that type of approach to recovering the cost of important public infrastructure been considered, or would it be considered?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member’s description could be two things.

One, it could be land value capture, with a lift of the value of the land. The Ministry of Finance would do that work. I know that we’ve done work to enable local governments to be able to capture some of that value, so it’s a better question for the Ministry of Finance, on where that work is proceeding.

The other way that could be looked at is around inclusionary zoning and capturing some sort of value from a project. Maybe it’s affordable housing; maybe it’s cash in lieu. We have provided, in the legislative change that we did, the ability for local governments, especially in transit-oriented development areas, to do that. But the requirement for them is to do a feasibility study to ensure that any inclusionary policy they’re putting in place does not deter development.

We do that because a change in Vancouver will be different than a change in Burnaby, in Surrey or in a different community. Having one standard policy just wouldn’t work, given the different dynamics within communities, but the ability is there for local governments to do that.

It’s vitally important that I emphasize that it requires a feasibility study to ensure that it doesn’t deter development. It’s easy to say: “That project right there is going to be six storeys. We want 50 percent affordable housing.” I just used a number. Let’s say 20 percent. If the project still can’t pencil at that price point, you’ve essentially just killed the project.

We want local governments to have the ability to have inclusionary zoning policies, but we don’t want it to be a poison pill, where it’s used to deter development in communities. Finding that balance is something that we tried to strike in this.

[1:45 p.m.]

So there are two pieces. We do inclusionary policy and enable local governments’ land value lift. I know there are discussions happening in TransLink, as well, and other authorities looking at that. That would be something that we wouldn’t directly look at. It would be the Ministry of Finance.

Rob Botterell: I’m going to shift gears now to local housing models funding. There are a variety of local housing models to ensure that the distinct needs of a community can be attended to, rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. I know we’ve, on a number of occasions, had helpful discussions around the Village model that is implemented in Duncan and other similar models around the province.

I’m particularly interested in tiny home communities like the Bluegrass Meadows Micro Village. What types of funding are there in this budget directed towards local and alternative housing models, and has this been expanded since last fiscal year?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know the member is passionate about this topic, because we’ve had opportunities to speak about it. There’s a lot of interest around tiny homes and communities as well. The member is well aware that we have a tiny home village, so to speak, in Cowichan and in Victoria. We have expanded tiny homes in Kelowna and Campbell River.

It’s important to know that tiny homes work in some communities, but they don’t work in some communities. They work on some lots, but they don’t work on some lots. It’s not the one solution that fits for everyone, but it may be a good solution for some communities.

B.C. Housing has been very flexible in ensuring that different models be considered in different communities, and now, as part of our agreement with the B.C. Greens, we will be able to expand that, and we will be looking to expand that. It won’t necessarily be tiny homes in every community, because some communities are not interested in that. They would like to do a different structure. But that option is available for the communities that are interested in doing so.

I can share with the member that we have increased funding for HEART and HEARTH — $44 million in capital, $227 million in operating for this type of model — and we’ve had some big success.

I look at Kelowna and what’s happening in Kelowna, where we’re going to have just over 120 units within the next few weeks. They’re seeing over 60 percent of people going into this supportive housing getting wraparound supports, learning, doing important life skills, getting IDs, connecting, getting a chance to work and reconnect with family. We’ve seen over 60 percent of people move in and already establish themselves in different opportunities or connect with work. So that’s a big success.

We’ve been rolling these units out, as the member is aware, in Campbell River. We have communities that were fighting us because they didn’t want this type of housing in their community now calling us and saying, “Can we have it?” because people have realized that the only way you can address homelessness is by addressing the fact that we don’t have enough housing.

I often will say this, and I mean it, which is that the problem isn’t homeless people. The problem is that they’re homeless because there’s no housing. That’s our responsibility: to scale up housing opportunities in communities, and we’ve had some success. We’re going to do more because of the agreement that we have with the B.C. Greens, and certainly hope to be able to share more of those details with the member very soon.

Rob Botterell: The whole issue and topic of building codes has been canvassed fairly extensively over the period of budget estimates.

[1:50 p.m.]

On Saturna Island and in parts of the riding in Sidney and North Saanich, there is active discussion around supporting young families starting out or folks in their 20s who want to build, I’ll call it, a tiny home. From their perspective — and, certainly, getting this feedback from some of the local governments and the CRD — the building code requirements for what would be a very small house, but one that enables folks to get into the housing market and live where they work, appear to them to be quite onerous.

The question is: has there been consideration of relaxing some of the requirements under the code in relation to what are fairly very modest tiny starter homes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member raising this.

I think it’s important to start by saying that a complete home not built well is just as dangerous as a tiny home not built well. Right now tiny homes are being built throughout the communities, throughout the province, but they require a level of safety to ensure that they’re safe.

We do hear from some local governments who say: “It’s the building code. That’s the reason why we can’t do the tiny home.” There are a lot of communities where there are tiny homes, but they’re not to code.

I will give the member an example. We had in Prince George, at Moccasin Flats, a homeless encampment. We had almost 100 people a year ago. A lot of people struggling to get into housing. So we had an agreement with Prince George, an MOU that said we were going to deploy 140 homes in that community, everything from modular to purchasing if we need to. We now have a handful of people left on Moccasin Flats, and they’ve been offered housing but they haven’t chosen it.

During that process, we had a tiny homes manufacturer from Alberta say: “We’re going to come in, and we’re going to provide tiny homes to the community. If the province can’t get that, we’re going to do it.” And they came in, so to speak, illegally and put some tiny homes down. Within two weeks, there was a fire, and we lost those tiny homes. I didn’t hear from that company again.

So what’s widely important to me is that we’re always looking at the building code, but if it’s going to put people’s lives at risk, I will not be the minister that signs off on it.

It’s the same thing I hear about seismic. I hear people say that the new seismic code, which is going to have a big impact here on the Island, which essentially is research from the National Research Council that says specific types of soils require different types of building structures…. I hear from folks in the home-building community say: “That’s going to put a lot of costs on us.”

I always say: “Do you agree with the research that it could be dangerous?” And they say: “Yes.” And I say: “Well, then, what are we discussing here? Why don’t we find innovative ways to find solutions around that? Let’s make sure we do it in a safe way.”

That’s the same with tiny homes. If there are suggestions that the member has on the code where the member hears ideas of how it can be done in a safe way but ensure that more of them can be deployed, I’m all ears. I’m very open to that, and if the member hears that, please do bring that forward.

Rob Botterell: I’ll certainly take you up on that offer. We have some folks in our riding that I think have some fairly creative ideas that respect the need for safety and seismic and all of the reasons you have a code. So thank you for that offer.

We’ve talked at some length about the speculation and vacancy tax and had a fairly vigorous exchange this morning on this issue through question period. We in the Green caucus certainly support the speculation and vacancy tax and the approach that’s being taken from a policy perspective.

[1:55 p.m.]

We would appreciate what information the minister could describe about the housing that is being created or what the minister sees as the future capacity or potential for the housing being created through this tax and how that tax collected might be deployed to support affordable housing.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This was canvassed yesterday with the official opposition as well. The speculation tax is with the Ministry of Finance, so they’ve got all the information. It’s led by the Ministry of Finance.

I’ll just make a comment to say that it’s been one of the most effective policies to get more housing back in the market. It’s a very simple premise. If you have investment properties and you leave them empty, you pay the tax. If you have investment properties and you don’t pay taxes in British Columbia, you pay the tax. In fact, if people are renting their properties out and not leaving them empty, they’re not paying the tax, and it’s good for us because it means more housing available.

The member is aware, because he heard the debate this morning, that in Metro Vancouver alone, we had more than 20,000 units come onto the market for people to rent. That’s remarkable. If you think of how much it would cost us to build 20,000 homes and how long it would take us — billions of dollars. One tax policy brought those homes back available for people in our communities.

You know, what I would say is that it’s a huge success. In fact, when I was travelling through the Interior, I remember meeting with one of the mayors in the Interior who told me that close to 54 percent of all of their mailings for their notices go outside the community. That’s pretty remarkable for a community that wants to operate, have a community, where a majority of their tax filings are heading to people that don’t even live in the community.

They were asking us: “How do we get in?” We want to make sure that our housing is for the people in our community, make sure our kids have a place to live, because they’re struggling and thinking about leaving the community, leaving the province, when we have housing right here and it’s sitting empty.

That’s just my view on it. That’s our government’s view on it. But the actual tax measures are better situated for the Ministry of Finance.

Rob Botterell: This may be more of confirming that this is also a topic to be canvassed with the Minister of Finance. What we’ve seen in the riding is constituents who are starting out in the housing market who are facing the challenge of meeting the mortgage and meeting all the various commitments that come with new home ownership.

I’ll digress for a moment and say that I have a certain amount of empathy for these folks, because when we bought our first house on Bowen Island many, many years ago, long before the internet, we had to cancel our subscription for Granada TV in order to pay the mortgage. That was one of the best things we ever did because our daughter grew up without TV, and I think she’s better for it. But that’s a digression. Back to the question.

The question is…. These young families that want to get into the house market need that extra helper in terms of rent. You know, in compliance with all zoning, they would be looking at adding a suite or finding some other rent helper, and often the obstacle to doing that for them is that it’s just one step too far in terms of that $10,000 or $15,000 to actually create the suite fully up to code.

[2:00 p.m.]

Is this a question that you can consider, or should I save it for the Minister of Finance, in terms of setting up some form of loan guarantee program or something that enables the government to both assist that initial investment and also get it returned in due course?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was smiling at the member when he was describing his child not having TV. I had the opposite moment with my kid. I had my grandma visiting about ten years ago, visiting my home, and my son called me at work and said: “Dad, you won’t believe what we have here. We have a cell phone with a wire that goes into the wall.” I realized pretty quick he was talking about a land line — you know, those things we used to have.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, it’s rough. Times do move.

I’m very sympathetic to the point the member has made as well. We hear from a lot of families in my community who say: “I’ve got a home, and I just want to put a little accessory dwelling unit in the back so my kids can be near me. I want my grandkids near me. I won’t have to travel. If I can do that, that would be easy.”

But there are a lot of challenges to be able to do that. There are some building code challenges, which I’m looking at right now to find ways to make it easier, to ensure the safety but ensure that it’s a smoother process. There is the federal government. We had a program, but we cancelled the program because the federal government program and what’s coming and what they’re offering is just way better than what we’re able to provide.

There is going to be the financing piece, but I think that a major part of the solution will be a two-parter.

One is more set designs — I wouldn’t say pre-approved, but pre-reviewed designs. Planners don’t like pre-approved designs; they like pre-reviewed. That standardization allows for those that build these modules through manufacturing, etc., to be able to create the efficiency to be able to make it cheaper.

If they’re constantly creating different designs, it’s expensive, but if they have a whole host of set designs, they’re able to produce them and drop the cost considerably. That’s one of the things that we’re rolling out, but it will make a big difference.

The other one is from the city or local government perspective. Every local government has different rules. When you have every local government with different rules, different height, different law coverage, it’s hard for those that are manufacturing to create the scale to be able to lower the cost. So we do need some standardization.

We put set design guidelines out to local governments and said: “Here’s what you all should be doing. This is the best standard.” It was done by a planner who won provincewide awards for his green planning. He was the chief planner at the city of Vancouver, with award after award for his sustainability lens on planning. One of the things they highlight is the need to standardize both the zoning from local governments but also to standardize the templates of what these units can look like.

So we’re doing some work on that. We have some more work to do because it’s all over the map still.

We do need to set some basic, I think, requirements for local governments. To say, “Here’s what it should be at a minimum; you can go much more than that if you want,” so that we can create standardization so that our industries can respond to lower costs for young families, for families that want their kids nearby or for people that are thinking: “Hey, you know what? I have a home. I can put a little unit in the backyard. I’ll live in the unit, part of my retirement, and I could rent the rest of the house out to another family.” There are just different things you can do with it.

Last thing I’ll say is that if you look at California, which brought in similar changes to us…. They were a little bit more, I would say, aggressive on ADUs, accessory dwelling units. I think the last stat I saw was that in L.A., 33 percent of all the new building permits were accessory dwelling units. People said: “This is much quicker. I’m just going to put one of these ADUs in my yard and have some families living in it.”

There’s huge potential in it. We are going to explore that as we go forward.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. That’s certainly very promising.

[2:05 p.m.]

There’s a bit of a carve-out that I’d like to explore a bit more. In my riding, and I think it’s probably similar around the province, young families will look at a house these days, and it’ll be, in some cases, fairly large — this may sound small to some these days, but from their perspective — 2,500 square feet or something, and it has a basement. They could add a one-bedroom suite, to code, in the basement.

Once they figure out the cost of acquiring that house…. It’s not about building a separate unit; it’s about renovating within the existing footprint of the house to code. They just look at it, and they say: “Well, it’s just one step too far.”

If we had some financial assistance or a loan guarantee or something — not everybody has parents with deep pockets — they could actually add housing, a one-bedroom, say, or a studio. It would be a mortgage helper, and it would also help address the shortage of housing generally in that affordability range.

Maybe that was addressed in your response, Minister, but that’s an area where I think there’s a huge opportunity, certainly in parts of my riding, to add housing stock at low cost and certainly see the government’s assistance returned in due course. So I’d be curious for your thoughts on that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, maybe I wasn’t clear. I tried to touch on that in the beginning of my answer, which is…. We had the secondary suite program, which offered up to $40,000, and the federal government came in after and said: “We have a program that’s $80,000 low-cost financing, 2 percent interest rate, over a 15-year amortization.” So in order to be efficient with dollars, why have a program that’s half the dollars that the federal government has?

I think that would address the piece that the member is referring to.

Rob Botterell: The first-time-homebuyers program allows people to get property transfer exemptions if the property has a fair market value of $835,000 or less, yet the average price of homes in B.C. is around $965,000, creating a barrier for entry into home ownership.

Would the minister consider raising the property value cap for first-time homebuyers to reflect increasing housing costs?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That, again, is Finance. Tax measures are always with Ministry of Finance, so that’s better situated there.

Rob Botterell: When I raise it with the Minister of Finance, can I say that the Minister of Housing is highly supportive of an increase?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When you raise it with the Minister of Finance, please mention that I’m looking for a lot more dollars for affordable housing as well.

Rob Botterell: Can the minister speak to the estimated revenue from the school tax and what portion of revenues from the additional school tax applies to high-value residential properties?

Related, does this government — and this may be Finance again, but anyway — have any intent to expand the additional school tax rate, such as by adding additional brackets to account for high-value residential portions assessed over $5 million?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This will be the shortest answer I give you today, but it is Ministry of Finance as well.

Rob Botterell: When the flipping tax was launched last year, the Minister of Housing and the Premier identified that the tax was expected to make over $40 million in revenue and would also help free up more homes. Can the minister tell us how much revenue has been made from the flipping tax so far and estimate tax revenues for this fiscal?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, all tax measures are with the Ministry of Finance. Our ministry doesn’t handle those measures.

Rob Botterell: A key issue with attracting and retaining health care workers in this province is the lack of affordable housing options available to them.

I can use both Salt Spring Island and Sidney as examples of where the challenge associated with increasing access to primary health care and increasing attachment of constituents to doctors is not, interestingly enough, a lack of doctors. It’s not a shortage of doctors; it’s a shortage of housing for doctors and the health professionals that support the doctors. As with many issues, they’re interlinked.

Can the minister describe this government’s plan or approach to providing affordable housing specifically for health care workers? That is the obstacle to significantly increasing attachment.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member is very right. It’s a major challenge for a lot of communities that are trying to attract a skilled workforce, whether they’re health care professionals, whether they’re working in local government planning, whether they’re firefighters, police officers; the list goes on.

Traditionally, historically B.C. Housing has been in the space of supportive housing and, maybe, more low-income housing. We have really expanded it with BC Builds, and it’s very much targeted to what the member has just highlighted.

The first project we announced was with the city of North Vancouver. The city of North Vancouver came forward with land. They had identified that their biggest priority, the biggest challenge that they were dealing with was that because of the North Shore’s lack of housing and the high cost of housing, they couldn’t attract health care workers to work at the hospital, and Seaspan, which pays really well, was struggling to attract workers to work for them. They couldn’t get housing, and people were commuting a long distance over the bridges, etc.

There’s a whole host of projects that are being built through BC Builds, which targets middle-income families. I know the threshold is around an $89,000 income up to $190,000 for family incomes. The reason we got into that space was to address that very challenge. We have a whole list of projects. I can share with the member that the Northbank project is very much focusing on that type of workforce.

We’ve got a project in Gibsons that’s being developed by a not-for-profit, operated by Sunshine Coast Affordable Housing Society, which is going to be 33 homes, a four-storey building with child care built into it. It’s going to be focused on that.

We have Whistler.

Even in the member’s riding, if the member is aware of the units at the Drake that are being built for supportive housing, part of that also has some units that are workforce-related.

It’s a challenge for us. You know, we also have this conversation around the Downtown Eastside. The units are going to be there. What we are going to do? For a lot of the not-for-profits that operate, their workforce can’t afford to live there anymore, and they’re moving out.

So we do need to do more of this BC Builds opportunity, but that’s really what that program was launched for. It was launched to ensure that there’s housing that’s below market, for workforce housing that meets people’s needs and their incomes where they’re at.

[2:15 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: The work in the riding that is taking place is much appreciated.

As the minister will know, as part of our accord with the NDP government, we are collaborating on a study on community health centres and how to expand community health centres across the province. So many of these issues are multiministry. I can phrase this as a question. It would be very helpful to discuss how best to plug your ministry’s senior people into that study, because it’s going to be the obstacle to many community health centre expansions.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The BC Builds program is built with a lot of flexibility in that it’s very possible that you have health care below and housing above. In fact, we have projects that are being worked on where there’s a fire hall below and housing above. I know some people think: “How can you have a fire hall and then housing above it?” But it’s possible.

Victoria is an example where we built affordable housing above a fire hall. When the fire bells go, all the lights turn red, so people in the neighbourhood don’t actually hear any fire trucks because the trucks can get out with no cars moving.

There are other communities that are looking to build community centres. We’re even considering a school being built with housing above it. This is the future. And BC Builds is well suited and actually is working really well for local governments because local governments are thinking…. A lot of local governments’ concern was: “We have land, but one day we wanted to build X. One day we wanted to build Y.” Now when they get money through our growing community fund, they can take those dollars to advance their project, and then we can come in and put housing on top.

You know, I think I’ll be following very closely to the work the member is doing with the Ministry of Health. If there are opportunities, then we’ll certainly look to leverage those.

Rob Botterell: We have discussed exclusionary zoning, to a certain extent, this afternoon. Let me just frame the question this way. While the government has made commitments to expand non-market housing and upzoning, current exclusionary zoning regulations often make non-market housing developments unaffordable and unnecessarily arduous. This is most evident in Vancouver, where apartments are still not allowed on more than three-quarters of the city’s residential land.

The question to the minister is: is the minister working or will the minister be working to implement provincewide initiatives in a tailored way to end exclusionary zoning for non-market housing?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It is an important topic, and obviously, we’ve done a lot of work in this space, and we’re going to do more. It goes to my comment I made earlier which is — I said this yesterday, and I mean it — that if you were to go to an affordable housing rally with people in a community, they would say: “What do we want? Affordable housing.” “Where do you want it?” And then it’s dead silent. Nobody has a second piece to that.

The exclusionary challenges are real. Too often it’s not the housing that’s the problem; it’s who is coming into the housing. So there are policies. Our zoning laws have a history of being designed not to limit housing but to limit people and certain types of people. We just have to come to grips with that, and that’s a reality.

Part of our work has been, to this point, to move to local governments. It starts with our housing needs, and it starts with housing targets. We have given communities housing targets, and it’s not just: “Go and build whatever you need.” It’s saying: “Here are how many one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms you need to be a complete community. You need supportive housing. You need affordable housing.”

That has fundamentally shifted the conversation in communities. Instead of not-for-profits begging to get attention of elected officials, elected officials now are going to not-for-profits and saying: “We have to reach these targets. How can we work together to do it?” I think that’s healthy. That’s a healthy start.

Now that local governments must update their OCPs to their housing needs, they have to start planning their official community plans with a lens of where this housing is going to go and have it approved up front. Then, when we get to the process of these projects coming forward, we’re not debating whether these people should be living in our community but more thinking about a community as a whole.

We are doing a lot of work in this space. We have more work to do, and part of that is leadership from elected officials.

I was praising my critic from Surrey. When she was mayor, she took a really tough stance in her community, and said: “Yeah, we need to have housing for people. It’s the only way to support people.” We need to have those things across the province, and that means pushing back against stigma and not stigmatizing people even more.

I’m definitely not referring to the member, because I know he’s a champion of this housing. But we are doing lots of work, and we have more work to do.

Rob Botterell: Electrification of new buildings is a vital step to reach net-zero emissions, as buildings were the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada in 2019.

My question to the minister is: does this government have a plan for the electrification of new housing developments, and has the minister considered establishing a clear, time-limited plan to work to implement a provincewide policy to prevent oil and gas hookups to new buildings where electricity is available?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There is a lot of work happening in this space.

First off, we made changes last year to ensure that all stratas are doing an analysis of their building’s portfolio to assess what energy capacity they have. That’s a good baseline, an important baseline.

We made changes to ensure that if someone were to want to build a charging station in a strata building, there was an easier process for them to be able to do that.

Right now we are making some of the largest increases in hydro and electric capacity in the province. We have legislation in front of the House, which I won’t go into, which allows us to expediate more energy in our province to be able to meet that housing demand and our demand for electrification. We need to do that in order to have this.

I would say that there’s not a discussion about a blanket across the province at this stage, but there is work happening to ensure that we have electricity to meet the demand in our housing market. There are conversations in communities, and in each community, they’re slightly different. Our focus right now is to build up the capacity.

I don’t want to go too much into estimates for the Minister of Energy. I’ll leave that to him. I’m busy enough with my file.

[2:25 p.m.]

I will say that we’re doing changes around code, around working with B.C. Hydro to ensure that power is being provided to projects as we go forward.

If I can use this moment just to share with the member that we’ve also launched a digital permitting hub. The digital permitting hub, I think, is going to be, over time, a game-changer for communities. Essentially, it’s digitizing the building code so that when a building permit application is submitted, within seconds it can check to see if it’s code-compliant. It can check to see if it’s energy-compliant.

The province has a sense of where the energy portfolios of the buildings are. We’re looking to partner with B.C. Hydro so that B.C. Hydro can get information on building permits right away, as well, so that it allows them to prepare to provide energy in a quick and efficient way. I think those are good incentives to help drive more electrification in home-building, as we go forward.

Rob Botterell: We’ve canvassed this to some extent in previous parts of the estimates. The construction trades workforce is facing a significant labour shortage, with approximately 11,500 construction jobs currently unfilled in B.C. Certainly, prefabricated houses and so on are part of the solution.

A question is: what is this ministry’s approach to closing that gap, since that can make a huge difference to our ability to close the housing gap?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member is correct that there’s no one solution to the housing crisis. Every solution involves lots of different moving pieces, and skills and trades training is critical to do that. We have been expanding trades training at a considerable rate. We have more to do.

We have been doing a lot of education in schools to remind young people that this is a good career to get into and push back against, perhaps, misconceptions of what the work is and what it’s not. I remember laughing with my dad about 15 years ago, when I was working at banking and stressed out all the time, and my best friend was an electrician. I remember saying to him: “You told me not to get into trades, and look how happy he is.” It’s a great career field.

So we’re doing work there. We’ve been using the limited numbers we have from the federal government on immigration to fast-track trades to immigrate here.

We have been expanding small-scale, multi-unit and housing near transit — lower-density housing — because the skills that are required to build that housing are different than the bigger developments and we have more access to trades in that space. Expanding there, it’s an easier space to do that. We’re putting less pressure on our labour force.

Prefabrication is the future. Mass timber is the future. I was fortunate enough, when I was in the Ministry of Jobs, to be able to put together the mass timber action plan. It is still as relevant today as it was then. Part of moving that forward is doing the things we’re doing, using government procurement to help drive that demand and that change.

But it requires more work, especially in the small space, the accessory dwelling units, all this. We need more standardization. I know the member mentioned standardization earlier. We need some minimums, and that’s what we try to do with the site standard document we released.

Let’s have minimums so that industry can scale up and produce at large scale the amount of housing at the minimum. If local governments say, “We want to go higher,” that’s great. That’s up to them. They want to do a bigger footprint; that’s up to them. But let’s have some minimums that are thought out so that industry can scale up the production to be able to meet that demand and lower the cost over time.

I’m passionate about this. I know members are probably passionate about this. This is key to addressing our housing crisis.

[2:30 p.m.]

Those of us that have seen how fast a mass timber building can be put together…. It’s remarkable. North Vancouver, the city, is now the champion, the leader. Vancouver used to be; now it’s North Vancouver city. They’ve got an amazing amount of buildings coming online.

I said to the mayor: “Why are you so happy about this?” She said: “B.C. product. We’re using sustainable products in our buildings. That’s what people in our community are demanding, addressing embodied carbon. It’s being done in a way faster time frame, less trades on site and less complaints from the public. There’s no noise because everything’s being done off-site. It’s just being assembled there.” So I just think it’s the future.

The federal government is doing some work in the larger building space for preset designs of buildings, which will help. But it’s going to require us to do some more work on standardizing minimums for small-scale, multi-unit and for accessory dwelling units so that we can see industry scale up.

Rob Botterell: We have pretty much reached the conclusion of the memorable part of estimates, being the Green caucus’s presentation. How’s that — quirky?

I do have one more question. Before I pose this question, I do want to thank the minister and the minister’s staff and all the public servants in the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and B.C. Housing, who have contributed to very helpful answers and detailed answers to the questions we’ve raised.

Earlier today there was some significant and extensive discussion around cats. It occurred to me that that is an emerging fairly major issue in the province. I thought I’d conclude with this question, which is: this government included a commitment to get rid of no-pet clauses for purpose-built rental apartment buildings, which excludes pet owners from rental housing. Can the minister describe the timeline and plan for implementing this commitment? What funding exists for this so that we can have cats and dogs everywhere in the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We are going to be doing some consultation with landlord groups, with tenant groups, to do a better assessment of what this means and how we go forward. We haven’t started that yet. I can’t give the member a firm timeline, although we are committed to it in our mandate. When I have a better update, I certainly will share that with the member.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. Those are my questions.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First off, I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful exchange. The member for Skeena asked some fantastic questions yesterday. The member for Surrey–Serpentine River — we had a great exchange. The member from Prince George, and, of course, my friend across the way from Saanich North and the Islands. This is what majority of the work should look like in government and it does look like.

I appreciate the people that are here get to see a thoughtful exchange. It’s not just yelling and screaming. That only happens for half an hour in the day.

I want to do a special thank-you to the amazing people behind me, because I don’t do the work. They do the work. Not only them — there are people in the other room, and there are people in their offices across the province that are watching.

A lot of people work. They do work. But the work that these individuals do has a massive impact on people’s lives every single day. I think that when somebody joins the public service, they want to know they’re doing something meaningful. I want to let the folks here know that what they’re doing is instrumental in the time that we’re living in, and I’m really grateful for all the work that they do.

To the people in the other room: thank you for the work that all of you do.

With that, Chair, I would like to wait for them to leave, and then I will read the statement. Thank you all.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 — approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee will stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply B reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In this chamber, I call continued second reading of Bill 5.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Members. We will bring this chamber back to order. Of course, we will be debating the amendment on Bill 5, and we will recognize the member for Skeena to begin this afternoon’s debate.

On the amendment (continued).

Claire Rattée: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that, and I’m happy to be back and talking a bit more about the amendment that was made to Bill 5 last week, I believe it was. I know that it’s been a little while, and I started my speech already last week, so I’m kind of continuing here.

I wanted to talk a bit more about what this amendment, the grocery rebate guarantee amendment, will actually mean for British Columbians. I wanted to start off by talking a bit about why this is necessary and why our leader moved this amendment, because the issue that we’re having with the fact that the government campaigned on a promise to provide a $500 rebate to each person in British Columbia, which would be $1,000 per family, and then pulled it away when they brought forward the budget, is that you can’t have it both ways.

I know that there’s been a lot of talk about tariffs, for example, being one of the reasons why they couldn’t bring this forward in their budget. You know: “We’re concerned about tariffs. We’re concerned about what these costs are going to mean, so now we have to claw back something that was promised originally.” But you can’t have it both ways. Either you knew the tariffs were coming or you didn’t know the tariffs were coming, because of the timelines of when the budget was put forward.

It’s no different than the carbon tax, for example, removing the requirement for the carbon tax. Again, either you knew it was coming or you didn’t know it was coming. So when this budget was put forward without this grocery rebate that was promised, the issue becomes: was that actually factored in there, or was it not? Because at that point we didn’t have tariffs yet.

That’s why we brought forward this amendment, because you can’t have it both ways. Now more than ever British Columbians are struggling. They’re struggling to make ends meet. We know that many British Columbians are only $200 away from insolvency, and something as minor as this could make a massive difference in their lives.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about, like I said, what this actually means for people in my riding, for example.

Just recently during the Housing estimates, I brought up one constituent that is low income and is struggling and is on income assistance. This individual makes just under $17,000 a year.

[2:40 p.m.]

When you think about somebody that’s making that much money a year, somebody that has traumatic brain injury, has multiple barriers and is struggling to make ends meet as it is, $500 extra on their income taxes in a year is a significant difference. That makes a lasting impact, and this amendment would ensure that this is something that that individual and every single British Columbian would get every single year. When somebody is making $17,000 a year, an extra $500 could mean the world to them.

I’ve got a number of constituents that are on income assistance right now because things have been very difficult in my riding. We’ve lost our forestry sector. All the mills have closed. Times have been very tough.

Right now in the city of Terrace, based on the last homeless count, one in 83 people are homeless. It is a staggering number, and the problem is that because that only equates to a few hundred people, this government hasn’t necessarily paid attention to it. To put it in perspective, if you were to look at what that means for population, that would mean that for the Greater Vancouver area, the entire township of Langley would have to become homeless for it to be on par with those same numbers. If that happened, the government would call a state of public emergency. But because it’s in my riding in Skeena, up north, nobody seems to care.

An extra $500 a year to one of those people that has to sleep on the streets in Terrace, a place that is very cold most of the year, could make a significant impact on their quality of life. It might allow them the ability to actually get into some kind of low-income housing and improve their lives. So $500 might not seem like a lot to some of the people that are in this chamber, but to most of my constituents, it would make such a significant difference that it cannot be overstated.

When you look at some of the factors of things that are going on in Skeena right now, the challenges that people are facing, the potential impacts of agreeing with this amendment and approving this promise that the NDP made — that they campaigned on, that is very likely the reason that they got elected — makes sense. It’s really the bare minimum that could be done at this point, when there’s essentially very little to nothing in this budget that was put forward for 2025 to actually address affordability for the British Columbians that are struggling right now.

Another significant area that this could make a massive difference for, in my riding, are people that are struggling with medical costs. There’s a lot of talk about how our medical system in Canada is free, but people don’t talk about all of the extra things that are involved in medical care that aren’t free, that aren’t covered. For people that are lower income — or even somebody that’s generally considered middle income because, really, that’s still not very much money in today’s day and age — any kind of a significant health problem costs them so much more money because of, again, our geography.

I know of three different people in my riding right now that have significant kidney problems, and to be able to access the dialysis treatment that they need to go for….

One of them is at risk of actually losing their home with how much money it’s costing them to drive from Kitimat to Terrace three or four times a week to be able to access dialysis. A 63 kilometre drive to get to Terrace, if you do that three or four times a week in a truck — that’s what you need when you live up north, because the highways are in horrid shape and it’s incredibly dangerous because of the weather frequently — that adds up. That’s significant.

This person’s spouse has been unable to work because they need to be the one to drive them to these appointments. Dialysis is incredibly difficult on the body, and it’s not easy for somebody to drive themselves to and from these appointments three to four times a week. For that couple, this might mean them actually being able to keep their home.

On top of that, this individual has had to drive multiple times and actually spend most of the summer this past year in Prince George, which is an eight-hour drive away, and pay for hotels for their spouse and all of that. Again, the financial impacts of having a health care problem when you live in a riding like mine are incredibly significant. I know that $500 a year or $1,000 for a couple, again, doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but it really is. It could make such a significant difference in the lives of people like that.

[2:45 p.m.]

I know another couple. They’re both seniors. They are both on long-term disability and again, obviously, have very little income. They do everything that they can to be able to live as sustainably as possible. They have a wood-burning stove so that they don’t have to use electricity or gas. They’re also very kind people. They take care of a lot of stray animals near their property. Recently, they also faced a lot of significant challenges with their health. On top of that, because of some clerical errors, they weren’t receiving their cheques for a few months.

I want to see an amendment like this passed because I don’t ever want to get a phone call from a woman like that again, in absolute tears because she and her husband haven’t eaten in a few days because they can’t afford it; all the stray animals that they take care of, they haven’t fed. She’s just heartbroken. And now finding out that she has to go to Smithers, which is about four hours away, to be able to get medical treatment, because she can’t access it in our riding, and leaving her husband, who is severely disabled and has no other caretaker there to assist him….

The financial impacts of this were immense. Again, there’s a couple that could really use that extra $500 a year. It would have such a significant impact on their quality of life and what that would mean for them.

I really do urge everybody on both sides of the House to think about those stories. Think about the stories of people that you know in your communities that have come forward that are struggling. We know that food bank usage is at an all-time high. British Columbians are struggling right now. They can’t afford this.

If tariffs are the reason why we’re not able to provide British Columbians with a little bit of tax relief, think about what those tariffs are going to do to those British Columbians that are struggling to make ends meet right now. If the tariffs are the reason why we have to tighten up the budget, again, think about what that does to those families that are struggling to make ends meet and what this could actually mean to them. It’s, again, a very, very small thing that has a huge impact on every single British Columbian.

I’ve got families in my riding right now that can’t afford to feed both themselves and their children. We live in British Columbia. That should not be happening in our province. That should not be happening in our country. Parents that have to make a decision between feeding themselves and feeding their children or hopefully relying on school programs to be able to provide them with food throughout the day — it’s shameful. That shouldn’t be happening in a country like Canada. It shouldn’t be happening in a province like B.C.

This amendment fixes something that was promised by the NDP. The opposition is giving them the opportunity to make this right and to save face on it. The trust of British Columbians has been broken.

Campaigning on a promise as significant as that and utilizing it to be able to win an election, one which was not won by any great number, by any means…. It was very close, so I think we can feel fairly confident that that was a big factor in why it was won by the NDP. Then to pull it away after winning election…. British Columbians don’t trust the government right now. They don’t trust that this government has their back.

The suffering that I’m seeing consistently, especially in my riding, especially in a number of different areas throughout the province where people are not as fortunate…. The difference that this could make for those people is massive. And $500 a year can buy a lot of extra groceries. It might not stretch as far as we’d like it to now because of the tariffs, because of that threat, but it would still make an impact.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’d really urge everybody on both sides of the House to think about what this actually means, what this would mean for British Columbians, what this would do to start to restore some of that faith in government and to recognize that both sides of the House are able to work together. That’s what British Columbians are looking for. That’s what Canadians are looking for. Again, I think we saw that very clearly both through our provincial election and this last federal election.

There is an expectation that we find common ground and that we work together on solutions that are going to actually improve the lives of the people that we’re here to serve. This is one way that we could very easily accomplish that. It would help significantly with restoring that faith. It would help with some of the strains that we’ve seen on mental health. We’ve been talking about that a lot lately in this House, about the impacts on people’s mental health.

Financial insecurity has a huge impact on that. Financial insecurity is absolutely a factor in anxiety and depression. It can mean the difference between a parent having to work overtime shifts and not getting to spend enough time with their children because they can’t afford to make ends meet, and that child then growing up feeling like they weren’t paid attention to enough by their parents…. It’s a vicious loop.

We should be doing everything in our power right now to try and ease that burden on hard-working British Columbians that deserve a little bit of a break right now, especially with everything that they’ve been through recently. They’ve come out of a pandemic, and we saw the impacts that that’s had.

I’m a business owner myself. I know the impacts that that’s had on small businesses. I know that the cost of supplies for me to be able to run my shop have almost tripled. Just because things have come down slightly since COVID prices doesn’t really mean anything when you factor in the fact that everything skyrocketed during COVID.

Everything is still more expensive than it was prior to the pandemic. Cost of living just keeps on rising. I think that members of the government know that, and that’s why this was something that was promised in a platform and then not delivered on. I think that members of the government likely have constituents in their ridings that have reached out to them with similar stories to the ones that I just shared, and countless others.

I’ll just reiterate that the people in my riding are really suffering right now. Until we can make sure that we’re focusing on getting our industries back up and running in that area and that everybody has access to good work and that there are enough homes available for people so that they can live comfortable lives and don’t have to be insecure about their financial status, that they can live comfortably, it’s the least that we can do to provide them with a little bit of relief.

It’s the least that we can do for underserved populations specifically, to try and ensure that fewer people are having to use a food bank to feed themselves and their children, that fewer seniors are having to live out of their vehicles or go into shelters and be surrounded by crime and drug use and things that they should not have to be surrounded by. The fact that there are seniors that are having to utilize shelters right now is shameful.

Again, I don’t understand why something like that would be happening in a province like ours. We have so much potential, with our industries, to be able to generate more revenue for the province. We have that ability to do that. British Columbians don’t necessarily have the ability to do that for themselves, but this government has the ability to do that.

If they’re concerned about saving money, and that’s why they don’t want to approve this amendment and don’t want to ensure that British Columbians have more money back in their pockets, then focus on promoting those industries and getting things moving again in this province. Focus on things like forestry to make that money back up, to ensure that we can put more of it in the pockets of British Columbians. They deserve that opportunity. They deserve to be able to afford basic groceries, to be able to heat their homes.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’ve got another constituent in my riding that had their gas turned off in their home for a few months over the winter because they have a pellet stove. They still received a $160 gas bill every month, even though their gas was turned off. Things are not affordable right now in this province.

Again, it’s a very small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but for each of those individuals, it can make a big difference: for a student that needs to be able to buy textbooks, for a mother that needs to be able to feed her children, for somebody that’s struggling with addiction that needs to be able to buy nicer clothes to be able to go to a job interview and get their life back on track. These small things can make a very big difference in the lives of British Columbians.

I really hope that everybody will make the right choice when we vote on this amendment, recognize that it was a mistake to take away this rebate from British Columbians and ensure that we do the right thing — that we vote yes on this amendment and we provide British Columbians with at least one small benefit from this budget that’ll help with their cost-of-living expenses.

It’ll prevent more British Columbians from trying to leave this province to go somewhere that it’s more affordable to live, to ensure that parents don’t have their young children, teenage children, young adults leaving to go find work in other provinces. This could make such a huge and significant impact.

Like I said at the beginning, you can’t have it both ways. We knew what was coming down the pipe when the NDP originally promised this $500 rebate. The Premier had already stated that if the federal backstop for the carbon tax was removed, we were going to remove it too. This promise was still made, and it was still broken. Nothing really changed, just the politics of the situation — being elected and feeling safe being back in government again and not having to make good on a promise to British Columbians.

I hope that we make the right choice, that we vote yes on this amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I just wanted to remind everybody that we are, of course, going to continue this afternoon with second reading debate on Bill 5.

For those joining us in the gallery, this moves that the motion for the second reading of Bill 5, intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, be amended by “deleting all the words after ‘that’ and substituting therefore the following: Bill 5 not read a second time until the House amends the basic personal income tax provided in section 4.3 (1.1) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.B.C. 1996) to $22,462.”

Today we are going to entertain speakers on the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: I stand proudly today as the MLA for Prince George–Valemount, as a British Columbian and as a member of the opposition to talk about two topics I would hope are close to the heart of each elected representative in this House: our families and this province’s economic well-being. When I speak in this House and I discuss the future of British Columbia, I cannot ignore the profound impact that the actions of this government have and are having on the constituents of my riding and on every British Columbian.

Today I want to enlighten you on a topic that has the power to uplift our families, strengthen our communities and bolster our province’s economy: reasonable tax rebates. Tax breaks of any size in my riding and throughout the North would be highly appreciated and, unfortunately, necessary due to the significant downturn in the resource sector.

Let’s start with how these may benefit families. When households receive tax rebates, they gain a little breathing room. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives supports the idea that targeted tax relief can increase disposable income for families. They advocate for personal income tax cuts that aim to benefit middle- and low-income Canadians and indicate that such measures can lead to higher disposable income.

[3:00 p.m.]

Additionally, they emphasize the need for fair tax measures to address economic challenges, further supporting the notion that targeted tax relief can positively impact family finances, allowing them to invest in necessities like education and health care and even save for future endeavours. This isn’t just good for individuals and families; it’s good for our whole community.

Now let’s talk about communities. With families having more money in their pockets, local businesses can thrive. Imagine a town where families can support their favourite shops, restaurants and services. It sparks economic activity, it creates jobs, and it fosters local entrepreneurship. Communities that invest in their residents become more vibrant and resilient.

Of course, we must not ignore the broader province. When families and communities flourish, our province benefits. Enhanced local economies mean increased tax revenues, which can be reinvested into essential public services, like education and health care. A study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that every dollar invested in community initiatives can yield up to $4 in economic return. Investing in residents of B.C. and B.C. families is investing in all of our futures.

Our Premier has said that the residents of British Columbia need relief now. That could not be truer with the continuous yet inconsistent looming threats and tariffs from our southern U.S. neighbours. Tariffs will impact every community, every industry and every person across this province and country.

Many B.C. residents were $200 away from being able to pay their bills before the threat of added economic pressure. At the end of last year, a third of British Columbians reported they are already insolvent, unable to cover their bills and debt obligations, and they have an average of $97 less left over. Tragically, half don’t believe they will be able to cover all living expenses in the next 12 months without going further into debt. So imagine what $500 to $1,000 a household could mean for families in British Columbia.

Well, today marks six months and 12 days since the 19 October 2024 provincial election. As opposition, the Conservative Party of B.C. has introduced an amendment, the income tax grocery rebate guarantee, to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. This bill amendment remedies a broken promise, a promise abandoned post-election by this NDP government, one the Premier campaigned on, one he and his MLAs garnered votes from, the $1,000 annual grocery rebate.

On 9 October, 2024, ten days prior to the provincial election, Premier Eby was quoted: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away. John Rustad would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators….”

Deputy Speaker: Member, we don’t use names, of course, in the chamber here.

Rosalyn Bird: It’s in a quote, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I would prefer that you stay away from the member’s name, please.

Rosalyn Bird: Noted. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

“He would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators while leaving you waiting for the help you need now.” As it turns out, it is the Leader of the Opposition offering that support and the Premier leaving B.C. residents waiting for the help he stated they need now.

As we look to the future, I encourage each of you to envision the kind of British Columbia you want to see — a place where families thrive, where every child has access to quality education, healthy food, recreation and where communities are resilient and prosperous. Together, this House can turn that vision into reality.

A high cost of living significantly impacts individuals, families and communities, leading to increased financial stress, reduced well-being and potentially hindering social and economic progress. For individuals, it can mean less discretionary income, financial insecurity and difficulties accessing essential resources, like housing and health care. Families may experience strain on their budgets, affecting their ability to save and invest and potentially leading to increased stress and conflict.

[3:05 p.m.]

For many households, $500 to $1,000 in tax savings can cover essential and unexpected expenses. It may be medical bills, car repairs or transit fares, ensuring families don’t have to choose between essential needs and emergencies. That relief, even if it seems small, may allow families more time together, because one or both parents can schedule one less shift. It could go towards children’s education, saving tuition fees or purchasing necessary school supplies and books. Investing in our children today cultivates a promising future for British Columbia.

We all recognize and have directly felt or seen the results of the rising cost of living. In my riding of Prince George–Valemount, the use of our local food bank has nearly doubled over a three-year span. Most of those individuals are seniors and children. With this savings, families may be able to more readily afford healthy food options, grow a garden, and they could can the bounty their garden produces, which in turn helps to combat food insecurity and promote better overall health.

When families spend this savings locally at a family restaurant, tickets to a Cougars game or a visit to the Exploration centre, they support their communities, and they contribute to job creation, ensuring that our neighbourhoods thrive. It’s a ripple effect of positive change.

It may free up extra money that can bolster savings accounts, providing families with a cushion for crises, fostering financial security that can lead to peace of mind. It may enable families to enjoy leisure activities, perhaps a family trip or a membership at the local recreation facility that will enhance quality of life and strengthen family bonds and significantly improve overall health.

When the government invests in families, it isn’t charity. It’s an investment in our province’s future. Thriving families lead to healthier communities, reducing long-term costs on health care and social services for the province and the country.

At a community level, a high cost of living can increase existing inequalities, limit economic opportunities and impact public services and infrastructure. Often it can disproportionately affect low-income communities and families, thereby widening the gap between the rich and the poor and potentially stifling economic development.

Increased demand for social services, such as affordable housing and food banks, as I have seen and heard in Prince George, puts a strain on public budgets and resources. It can make it difficult for individuals to move up the social ladder, limiting their opportunities for advancement. High housing costs can drive up demand for affordable housing, potentially leading to longer wait-lists and increased competition for scarce resources.

Lowering housing costs and other living expenses can make it less difficult for individuals to pursue new opportunities, attend post-secondary school like UNBC or CNC college, start a new business like Jack’s Indoor Adventure Playground or grow a business such as the Wall of Fame Sandwich Shop, all of which are in Prince George.

The stress associated with continued increased costs can lead to increased mental health challenges within the community, impacting the overall well-being of all residents. There has been a doubling of requests for mental health services in my riding, which speaks to this particular concern.

In the past few years, we have seen a record number of young British Columbians and residents moving to Alberta, attracted to the province’s economic growth and job opportunities, while struggling with B.C.’s high cost of living and housing has prompted many young people to move or to seriously consider a move. My stepdaughter, her husband and my four-year-old grandson just moved to Grande Prairie six months ago for these very reasons.

[3:10 p.m.]

An additional $500 to $1,000 in tax savings for B.C. residents and families doesn’t just represent money. It symbolizes hope, security and the investment in brighter futures for themselves, their children and their communities. Let’s work together, creating opportunities that resonate with compassion and integrity for all.

Every decision that we make — as individuals, as a political party, as an elected government — has consequences. Sometimes they are positive, other times negative, and occasionally those decisions have unintentional and unforeseen consequences.

I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to an essential pillar of Canadian democracy: confidence in all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal. For residents of British Columbia, this confidence is not merely a political abstract. It is the very foundation of a thriving, engaged and empowered community.

While I was campaigning and still today I have had many conversations with or received correspondence from B.C. residents who have lost faith in the government. Many feel unseen, unheard and forgotten. They remain disappointed with the continued broken campaign promises, administrative mismanagement, increased taxes and a lack of accountability and transparency. This has resulted in residents forgetting that in a democratic country, the residents, the voters, are in fact the government.

We as their elected representatives have a responsibility to honour their choices and to do everything we can to adhere to the principles of good governance, solid fiscal policy and management while always striving for transparency and accountability.

When residents trust their government, they are more likely to engage in civic duties, whether that’s voting, attending town halls or volunteering for community initiatives. This active participation fosters a vibrant democracy where every voice is heard. Confidence in leadership and elected officials encourages support for policies that benefit our communities.

When families feel assured that their government has their best interests at heart, they are more likely to embrace initiatives aimed at the improvements, be it in education, health care or environmental protections.

As a proud veteran, I have seen firsthand in many places that trust in governments is essential for social cohesion. When residents believe their leaders are acting with integrity and making decisions based on compassion, we build a united community where diversity is celebrated and collaboration flourishes.

A confident, assured public will stimulate economic growth. Investors and businesses are attracted to regions with stable governance, knowing that leadership will foster a favourable environment for growth. This influx leads to job creation, supporting families and communities across our province.

In times of crisis — may it be natural disasters, forest fires, landslides, flooding or public health emergencies — confidence in our government becomes a lifeline. A government that communicates transparently and acts decisively instils a sense of security, fostering communal resilience. We can weather all storms together.

Perhaps most importantly, confidence thrives in a system where integrity, accountability and transparency are prioritized. B.C. residents deserve a government that acts with integrity, is transparent in its dealings and is willing to admit mistakes. This honesty fosters trust, an invaluable currency, in governance.

As we move forward, let us remember that our collective voices are powerfully capable of shaping policies and making changes that reflect the diverse needs of B.C. residents and our communities. Also, we must consider the legacy we choose to leave behind for future generations. When we cultivate trust in our government and invest in our families today, we are equipping our children with the tools they need to thrive tomorrow. A strong foundation today leads to resilient leaders of tomorrow.

[3:15 p.m.]

In conclusion, the importance of confidence in our provincial government cannot be overstated. It is what binds us as a community. It strengthens our democracy and empowers us to strive for better. Together let’s advocate for leadership that embodies honesty, integrity and commitment to all residents of British Columbia.

I ask all members of this House to support the bill amendment and make the grocery rebate guarantee a reality as it follows through on a promise made and provides some tax relief that British Columbians deserve and need.

Members of this House, let’s work together and move forward towards a future that honours every individual’s and family’s right to thrive. Together we are stronger, and together we can achieve greatness for our communities, our province and Canada.

Kristina Loewen: I rise today in this chamber to support this wonderful amendment that was brought forward by the member for Nechako Lakes. This is an amendment that speaks to the heart of what matters most right now to British Columbians: affordability, fairness and responsibility. That is why I’m standing here today and speaking to this amendment.

This is an amendment that is grounded in fairness, responsibility and, most importantly, meaningful relief for British Columbians who are being crushed by the rising cost of living. Right now families across this province are struggling under the weight of rising prices. Rent is up. Interest rates are up. Groceries are sky-high. The previous member mentioned that some things are coming down, but that’s after they skyrocketed during the pandemic, and that was an insane time.

I think, just for the record, when we compare where we are at now to where we were two years ago, we’re not comparing apples to apples. We need to be comparing, or this government needs to be comparing, where things are now to where things were when they took over the government. It doesn’t matter whether you live in Prince George, Campbell River or Kelowna, the cost of living is pushing people to the brink.

Everywhere I go in my constituency, whether it’s the grocery store, the gas station or the community centre, I hear the same thing: “I don’t know how much longer I can keep this up.” Families are watching their paycheques disappear before the month is over. Seniors are making impossible choices between prescriptions and groceries. Young people are wondering if they’ll ever be able to get ahead.

It breaks my heart listening to the stories of the people of Kelowna that are really struggling, and they aren’t getting ahead. They are the reason I am an MLA. They are the reason I decided to put my name forward and run.

British Columbians are resilient. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they play by the rules, but they are tired of promises made and promises broken. They are tired of being taxed to death — taxed on their income, taxed on their property, taxed on their purchases and taxed on their taxes.

This bill begins to change that. The Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act proposes to save each British Columbian $500 a year. That’s $1,000 to every two-income household. Those are families that we’re talking about. This means that every family would save $1,000 each and every year.

This means more money in families’ pockets, and not another broken promise from this NDP government. The NDP promised voters a $1,000 grocery rebate in the 2024 election. After the votes were counted and they regained the power that they’d feared losing, they walked away on this campaign promise. That promise was a whisper of hope, a glimpse of relief and a chance for just a sliver of peace and optimism for families that are living paycheque to paycheque, just $200 away from trouble, loss and hardship every two weeks.

[3:20 p.m.]

This promise was one that I would have latched onto in their shoes. When my husband and I had our four children as young parents in our early 20s and early 30s, we struggled. Life’s plans changed, and finances weren’t always easy. We lived paycheque to paycheque. And yes, $200 — heck, even $100 — whether it was short or extra, made a huge difference in our monthly bills. This was a time when we, like so many families today, could not afford for one thing to go wrong.

We just got by. We didn’t go on trips. We didn’t go to movies. We didn’t go to the mall, because we couldn’t buy anything. For us, we worked hard. We loved our kids well, and we pinched and saved and budgeted, and we just hoped for calm waters.

We hoped the van wouldn’t break down, and it was a real threat, because I was running a daycare at the time, and I needed the van to drive the kids to and from school. A costly repair could impede my ability to work.

We just hoped no one would get sick. When my oldest child was four, she needed emergency surgery. It turned into a lengthy hospital stay, and our family was in trouble. If I wasn’t there to run the daycare, the loss of income would set us back significantly. Many times I pushed through work while not feeling well, because there was no other option for an entrepreneur living paycheque to paycheque.

It was promises like this, temporary and immediate relief, that tugged on our hearts and minds and, yes, tempted us for our vote in the past. This is a cheap way to grab votes.

I get it. It works. Desperate people will cling to hope. They will grab the closest thing to their grasp which will keep them from drowning. It’s a survival instinct. It’s a good thing. It’s smart. It’s necessary. I have been there, and I get it. But it’s especially cheap now that it’s been used as a bait-and-switch.

Well, this new motion could rectify that. It would give families the relief that they need now. It would also give this government the opportunity to make good, to provide the much-needed and much-promised relief. It’s a start. This new amendment would reduce income tax, and it would be permanent, not just three years.

One of the biggest reasons I got involved in B.C. politics, the biggest reason actually, was affordability. I have four kids, as I mentioned before. They’re all young adults or almost young adults now. I’m really proud of them, by the way. They don’t have the same optimism that I had at their age.

I was told: “Your whole life is ahead of you. What will you do? Where will you travel? What do you want to be? Where will you live?” I dreamed of travel, family, home ownership with a beautiful yard and pets. Kids and young adults now seem to feel, or maybe they know, that they will never own a home. They don’t have the same licence to dream that I had not that many years ago.

My own kids have mentioned Alberta or further away for affordability reasons. Others have left not only the province but the country. People are seeing their futures erode in B.C. We are being taxed to the eyeballs.

Prior to being elected, I worked in real estate, and I saw firsthand how expensive people find British Columbia. From the property transfer tax, which we sometimes call a deal killer here in B.C. with those from out of province, to the sheer number of buyers that just gave up here on our market or to the sellers that left for more affordable ground, we saw it, firsthand as realtors, everywhere. If we could reduce taxes for families, we might keep some families here in B.C. If we could reduce taxes for people, we might keep our adult children here in B.C.

In October of 2024, the Premier said: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away. The Leader of the Official Opposition would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators while leaving you waiting for the help you need now.” Well, actions speak louder than words, and it turns out that it was the Premier that left you waiting for the help you need now.

[3:25 p.m.]

The Premier was all tax — oops, Freudian, I mean all talk — and no action. That is like seeing someone drowning and saying: “Nah, I’m not going to throw you this rope and flotation device now, because I can’t afford it. But I know you’ll be fine, and thanks for voting for me.”

The Leader of the Official Opposition knows people are drowning financially and that they need this help now. That is why I can support this amendment, and I hope that you will too.

Families are hurting, and 307 new clients registered for food bank support in the Central Okanagan. That was just this March. These are new clients to the food bank, people who never needed a food bank before. These are families. In fact, the fastest-growing clientele at the Central Okanagan Food Bank is middle-income families — families with two income earners, two working adults in one home. Many have good jobs. Many have university degrees. This is unacceptable in Canada. This is unacceptable in British Columbia and in Kelowna.

This amendment could be a first step in instant relief for families. I read all of the ministry mandate letters, and they all start with the same points: grow the economy. But I do not see that happening, unless you consider government jobs and bureaucracy economic growth.

This amendment would put more money in the pockets of British Columbians. For some, it will be the difference between seeking help from a food bank for the first time or going to the grocery store like they live in the first-world country that they actually live in. For others, like the entrepreneur I was, it could mean being able to spend time in the hospital with a loved one without going into debt. Maybe it will be a payment on a student loan or an investment in a product for the start of a small online business.

Or, since cats are a theme today, maybe you can afford to buy your cat some pet food or some fresh litter.

I hope to make the point and emphasize how much people are struggling in the real world, outside of the walls of this chamber. Seniors are struggling. A couple of weeks ago in Kelowna, and I know I’ve said this before, three different senior men sought shelter in one day at one particular location. That was one day in Kelowna. It’s worth noting that not one of these men, not even a single one, had a drug use issue, and not one of these men had previously sought shelter.

I’m sure that for them, after working productively their whole lives, this would have been a blow to their pride. And I can’t imagine. I feel so bad for them. I can’t imagine how they must be feeling and what they’re facing. This is how bad it is and how badly British Columbians need this relief that this bill could offer.

In October of 2024, the Premier said: “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 it.” The Premier sounded so kind, and maybe I believe him a little bit because, well, he does yoga like me, and yogis are nice people usually. Because I like to believe the best about people and because I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, I want to believe him. Most people want good things for themselves and for others. We don’t like to see others suffering. But I do think there’s a disconnect from that side of the room, because life is harder. Everything seems less affordable.

How can he be on the side of everyday people when he cancels relief, and life just continues to be harder and harder for the shrinking middle class? I have a hard time with the Premier’s statement, because after eight years of NDP government, there is nowhere that you can look in any sector where life is better, unless it’s an executive position in a government-funded job. Yet I hear all of these nice things coming from the other side of the room. Things like: “We’re investing in this. We’re increasing funding in that, continuing to support this. We’ll begin to support that. We will do. We have done. We’ve reduced poverty. We’ve expanded programs.”

[3:30 p.m.]

But then tell me why. Why does life seem worse, harder? Why is everything less affordable? Why are there more mental health struggles than ever before, and more crime? There seems to be a disconnect here, a difference between some really pretty, dressed-up word salads and reality.

I like to deal with the root of the problem. This amendment speaks to the root of the problem. There’s not enough money in British Columbians’ pockets. Rather, this government seeks to tax British Columbians and then give a little bit back here and there.

This is the kind of system that promotes reliance on the government, and quite frankly, it buys votes. It’s the kind of system that takes away from an individual’s ability to provide for themselves. It erodes pride and purpose, two things that are key to an individual’s ability to feel whole and alive and to achieve the mental wellness that comes with that.

When I raise my kids, I want them to grow with a sense of reliance, with a feeling of purpose and optimism. Too often today this government is pushing a “we’ll take care of you” approach: “Trust us to give it back to you. Trust the system to be there when you need it. Trust us.” This takes away from a person’s motivation, and furthermore, that system is broken. The system is so broken and breaking down in front of us. What will be left to trust in after we’ve gathered their trust?

This amendment could be a beginning. Together we can work to put more money into wallets, money that the government never took out to begin with. A novel concept, I know. But I believe we need to begin here.

On September 30, 2024, the Premier said: “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the year after that and the year after that.” It was a cheap promise, but now the government can make good on it. It can be a joint effort across political lines, and it can be permanent, not just three years. British Columbians need more than three years of relief. We need a real and lasting plan for a stronger economy, lower taxes and more hope and opportunity for young British Columbians. This bill promises relief.

Perhaps we don’t need to make poverty a thriving industry, fuelled by high taxes and low incentives for the business community. Perhaps we can move back towards a thriving middle class. As we all know, a healthy and thriving middle class is essential and important to a healthy democracy. A healthy and widespread middle class provides a healthy foundation for the economy.

Modest taxes coming from this class can also support a wide range of supports for a struggling and vulnerable population. Without a strong and healthy middle class, all of the systems that the vulnerable depend on become at risk. As the critic for Social Development, I am keenly aware of how at-risk some of these programs are or could become.

Like any household budget, one cannot expect to run deficits, build debts, use credit cards in an infinite manner and be able to sustain that behaviour long term. At some points, payments become unmanageable, and the whole house of cards will fall. This is my concern with the struggling middle class. It’s why I believe this amendment is so important. We have to support the middle class, as it is they who support every program that this government runs.

On September 29, 2024, the Premier said: “People need help now so they can get ahead. The Leader of the Official Opposition 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.” The Premier said people will need relief now, but what’s changed since September that he feels he can simply cancel this plan? What is his plan to support those who need relief?

This amendment seeks to answer that call, delivering immediate relief to families who are now just $200 away from falling behind on their bills. The people on this side of the room have the backs of all British Columbians, and that is why we will support this amendment. We want to see businesses thrive. We want a healthy middle-income society.

[3:35 p.m.]

We want healthy programs supporting our vulnerable, but we realize we can’t do that without a strong and healthy middle class that pays a reasonable amount of tax and has a strong chance for opportunity and prosperity. We aren’t against social programs. We understand how they must be funded and that money does not grow on trees.

I knew then and I know now that the member for Nechako Lakes would bring policies that would bring relief to everyday British Columbians, policies that would release the stranglehold of high regulation and overtaxation that it has on everyday British Columbians and small businesses. This amendment brings real, recurring relief to the people of British Columbia, which is what they need right now.

I know the people of Kelowna would support this type of amendment. During my campaign, I heard from small businesses, small business owners and restaurant owners, that they will not survive another four years if this NDP government stays on the current trajectory of high taxes and high regulation. I have witnessed many businesses in Kelowna close down in the past couple of years, so I believe them.

One of my colleagues on this side of the House tells me that restaurant owners in his riding used to run their restaurants with 12 staff. Take-home was millions, and a burger was $6 just a few years ago. Well, now that same burger is $12, so it has doubled. They can only afford to have two staff, not 12; and they take home about 65 percent of what they were taking home several years ago.

This is not sustainable. This is why we will continue to see families in the food bank lineup, leave the province and businesses leave the province. Unless and until this government begins to bring relief to the middle class, we are on a path to deficits, debt and lack of opportunity.

I do know that all members want good things for British Columbians, so I urge all of us to dig deep, consider what is working and what is not working, and find a common way forward. I do believe that we can agree on many things and that we should drop the things that matter less. Ideologies and regulations and being right all matter very little when children are hungry and jobs are scarce or the ones that are available simply don’t pay the bills.

Let me remind this House that it wasn’t that long ago. It was just last year, in fact that the Premier himself promised British Columbians a $1,000 annual grocery rebate. He stood in front of cameras and said help was coming. Then after the election was over, after the headlines faded, that promise was abandoned, but not before they gave themselves raises.

British Columbians are not asking for luxuries. They’re not asking for handouts. They’re asking to be able to afford milk, bread, diapers, gas to get to work. They’re asking for a little bit of breathing room. They’re asking for the supports to be able to provide for themselves, and this bill gives it to them.

This amendment holds the government to its word too. If the Premier and his cabinet believed in that rebate enough to campaign on it, then they should believe in it enough to support this bill. I hope all members of this House will support this bill and provide the tax relief British Columbians so desperately need and deserve.

This is an amendment that every member of this House should support. It brings real solutions to real problems. It’s not broken promises anymore. I urge all members of this House to support this commonsense measure and give British Columbians the tax relief that they deserve.

We in this House have a responsibility to listen to our constituents not just during elections but in moments like this when action is needed, when leadership is required, when talk is not enough. So I ask all members of this House to set aside the politics.

Think of the people in your riding who are watching their grocery bills climb. Think of the young families barely keeping up with mortgage payments and daycare costs. Think of the seniors counting their change in the checkout line.

Just like my caucus colleagues, I support this amendment, and I hope the other side will support it as well.

[3:40 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: It’s always a privilege and an honour to speak in this House at any opportunity. I think this is a very special one, because I think we have a unique opportunity to do something here that will help all British Columbians.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. I think we’ve got a great, like I said, opportunity in front of us to do just exactly that for a couple of reasons.

It’s important that we do our best to live up to our words and our commitments, something I know that we try and do in this House. I try and do it as a parent. I try and do it as a community leader, especially when we make commitments. I think this is what we’re talking about today, and this is a fundamental challenge — that this government has made a commitment.

We are, on this side of the House, doing our part to help fulfil that commitment. I think that’s good. I think that that’s collaboration. I think it’s an opportunity for us all to come together and do the right thing. We’ve listed it off, and I look forward to hearing some of the government members speak on this amendment. I’m sure we’ll be able to do that.

Here’s why I want to see that happen. It’s because a lot of the members that have sat in this House presently spoke on the grocery rebate during the campaign, quite often, numerous times a day, probably handed it out on their campaign literature. “Here is what an NDP government is going to do for you.”

That’s good. That’s what campaigns are all about. Whether it’s campaigning on free contraception, renters rebates, involuntary care, that’s what campaigns are all about: making commitments. The big problem, though, is that when you get there, at the end of the finish line, they expect that you somehow fulfil those commitments, because you should.

I guess my challenge would be that if it’s good enough to campaign on and speak about and go on CKNW, have ads, use it in leaders’ debates, local chamber debates when they showed up, I think it’s really important that we do that now. There’s an opportunity to speak on that and defend it, vote on it, support it.

I can’t see any constituency out of the 93 that are represented in this room that wouldn’t support what we’re talking about today. There are no food banks in this province right now that are saying: “We actually don’t have a long list of people.” In fact, they’re saying: “We’re running off the food of our shelves. We’re running low on money. We’re struggling.” This would go a long way in helping that. I think we have an obligation to have that conversation, and unfortunately, on this amendment, it’s a one-way conversation.

You know, I look at it from a couple of perspectives. I think we’ve heard the Finance Minister talk about why she wouldn’t support this. We heard her during the campaign talk about why she would support it, but now she doesn’t. She lists tariffs and all that stuff. We know the reality of what’s going on. We see it every day. It changes every day.

But the fact is that this decision to renege on this commitment, just like the decision to renege on the renters rebate in two consecutive elections, the decision to renege on the commitment to support involuntary care, even the decision to delay free contraception — they’re all decisions made by this government.

[3:45 p.m.]

This one here, in terms of helping those who need it the most, helping actually every British Columbian — they made a conscious choice not to do it. And that was prior to any talk of the change of tariffs.

I had people that came up to me — this was after October 19, and it was more than just once — and said: “Do you think that there’s any chance that we could get that money prior to Christmas?” I’m sure I wasn’t the only one that was having those conversations.

I think there’s a reality of why the Premier didn’t want to reconvene in the fall post-election. It was because he didn’t want to give that bad news. My question would be….

You probably even knew during the campaign that you couldn’t fulfil this commitment.

There are people sitting here today that benefited politically and probably owe their seats because of that commitment that this Premier made. That’s a fact when you look at some of the margins in some of the ridings. It played that big of a role.

All we’re doing here today is we’re trying to be helpful, collaborative and say: let’s work together. Let’s get this done. Let’s help out British Columbians. Let’s help out not just the people in Surrey–White Rock. Let’s help out the people in the Finance Minister’s riding, the Agriculture Minister’s riding. Let’s help out all 93 ridings right now and make sure that people know that when we make a commitment, we’re going to follow through. That’s it. We’d get that done real quick because, like I said, it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing.

We’ve mentioned the quotes from the Premier on this. He talks about it. The Premier says…. This is on CBC, September 30, 2024. I think much of the budget numbers and the budget was focused on numbers prior to that. The Premier made these comments on September 30, which I’m just going to read. He says, and I quote: “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that and the year after that and the year after that.”

On October 9 of 2024, he says — and this is actually in an NDP news release, so this goes back to what I was talking about — “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away.” Right away. “The Leader of the Opposition would hand tax breaks to billionaire speculators, while leaving you waiting for the help you need now.”

That was in an NDP news release during the campaign, something that I’m sure all 93 NDP candidates were circulating everywhere. Whenever they knocked on doors, did phone banks, did rallies, when they went to their chamber debates, wherever it was, this was something that they were keen to talk about.

They’re not that keen to talk about it right now, and that’s a big problem. We have to be accountable in this place. There’s an expectation that we do that. It’s fundamental to what we do. Here’s the problem: when you make a commitment and you don’t live up to it, there are big challenges with that.

Again, we heard about the tariffs. We understand the tariffs, and we understand the impacts that they’re having. Nobody in this House is happy about that. But these decisions were made before we even heard President Trump talk about tariffs. The decision to pull the rug out from British Columbians when they needed it the most, when they actually went to the polls and voted because of this — to me, that speaks to a core credibility issue that we’re seeing with this government.

I’m going to talk about the importance of what this money could do for people in my riding and some of the other ridings.

Now, everybody here remembers the heat dome that we had. We lost 617 British Columbians. I lost a few seniors in my riding from that. We have very aged apartments there that basically turn into greenhouses. Some of them didn’t even know that if they opened their windows, it actually got worse.

[3:50 p.m.]

The fact of the matter is that then the government comes out and says: “Okay, well, we were totally unprepared for this, but here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to give rebates” — whatever it is — “on air conditioners.” I can tell you that the majority of people in my riding that need those air conditioners didn’t get access to them.

This, what we’re talking about in front of us right now, could actually help them go to Home Hardware or wherever it is, RONA, and get those air conditioners as we move into the hot summer months. That’s the decision that they could make.

For the single mom, she can make the decision if she’s going to put her son or daughter in spring hockey. This helps with that.

To the senior that’s making a decision whether or not they are going to be able to pay their rent or pay for their prescriptions. This helps with that.

Maybe for the person that is struggling with mental health but doesn’t have the benefits that so many people enjoy and needs to get counselling services that aren’t publicly available. This, what we’re talking about in front of us, can help with that. It does. It helps a lot.

It helps when you have so many British Columbians that are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills, when the cost of everything is going up day by day, and it’s getting harder and harder. In this House, what we’re hearing from this government is: “Be patient. Help is on the way.” It hasn’t been.

We are asking British Columbians to do so much right now. We’re asking them to Buy B.C., which they should be doing and which we all should be doing. It’s very important. We’re asking them to be patient. I’ll tell you, the patience is running out.

If you look at it, even how expensive it is…. I had a guest come over to visit me on the ferry. There and back with gas, ferries — it’s over $250, just to visit the capital city. No hotel. That’s just filling up her car and getting on the ferry. This helps with that.

This helps people maybe be able to make that mortgage payment that month or their rent. We deal with a lot of individual cases where we are, and I’ll never forget the one where I had an event and a lady came up to me, an elderly lady, and she said to me…. I’ve told this story before.

She said: “Are you using your parking spot over the weekend in front of your office?” I said: “No, it’s free. You can use it. What do you need it for? You can have it.” She goes: “Well, me and my daughter, we sleep in our car, and we get harassed. And I think that if I’m parked in front of your office, maybe they’ll leave me alone, and we can get a good night’s sleep.”

That’s a true story. This helps her. It won’t change her life, but it will help her life when she needs it the most.

Why wouldn’t we do that? Why not? We’re smart people in this room.

I grew up in a small business family. My mom’s last day is actually going to be tomorrow; she’s retiring. She ran that business for 30 years. She kept the same staff for almost all of it, and she treated her staff very well. One of the things that she always stressed is that if you treat people well, they’ll stick with you, and they’ll keep coming back.

[3:55 p.m.]

Part of it, too, was we learned early on that people, when they have a little bit more money in their pocket, tend to spend it. And when they spend it locally, we all do well. When they say, “You know what? Tonight we can actually afford to go down to the beach and have fish and chips,” that doesn’t just benefit them. It benefits the people that are selling it. It benefits the people that are getting the fish, that are serving the fish, that are frying the fish. It all trickles down.

That’s what I think this government doesn’t understand: that when people do better, we all do better. That’s how it works.

I can’t see a vast amount of people that are going to take this money and say: “You know what? We’re going to invest it.” Maybe some of them definitely will. But the majority of people need help, and they need it right now. We’re hearing that. I know every MLA office is hearing that.

The Leader of the Opposition has taken an opportunity to put this amendment on the floor. We’re having this debate. Right now it’s pretty one-sided. But there’s an opportunity right after I sit down for somebody to pop up on the government side and either support this or tell British Columbians why they have failed once again to live up to their word.

In the next election, I don’t know what the NDP slogan might want to be. “We overpromise and underdeliver” We’ve had election and election where that’s happened. Renters rebate, same thing. I think it worked out to almost a dollar a day, if that. But here we have something that can be very vital to how people are living.

To me, it’s all about priorities. Nobody is thinking in this House — and nobody is thinking, definitely, outside of this House —that this NDP government are wizards when it comes to the financial realities of where we are. We’ve had credit rating downgrades. Now we’ve got record-setting deficits.

We heard in question period that we’ve got stuff that’s been sent to a minister’s office and not even been reviewed or not been followed up on or unaware of stuff coming into that office. We have an opportunity right now, right in front of us, to do the right thing. I think that we should take advantage of that.

One of the things that, right after we were elected…. You could tell right away…. First of all, the Premier was more panicked on trying to find a Speaker than he was when he was trying to get the grocery rebate. But people were asking: “When are you going back to Victoria? When are we getting this?” Right away you could see the hedging that was happening: “Well, we’ll have to see. We have to look. We’ve got to appoint a cabinet. We’ve got to do this. We’ve got to do that. We’ll see, but we’re looking hard at it.”

Suddenly those brochures disappeared a long time ago. Those debates didn’t exist. This was the last thing that he wanted to talk about. Then in the weeks that followed, it was more hedging. Then it was like: “It ain’t happening. Don’t ask me about it again.”

We have a chance right now. We can get this done very quickly. It’s important. We talk about priorities and after…. You were talking about…. We are talking about $500 a year, which is not…. It’s a lot of money to somebody that’s at a food bank.

Let’s take an example. When you’re the Premier’s chief of staff for less than two years, and a press release goes out that they’ve mutually agreed to part ways or whatever it is…. By the way, here’s $275,000 out the door. That gets done right away. But we’re talking about a grocery rebate. It’s about priorities. That’s what this is about.

[4:00 p.m.]

When we broke for Christmas holiday break, I think there was only one NDP MLA that was making base salary. I don’t know who it was. I feel sorry for them. But one of them was, I think, if that — just one. Everybody else was making over that $119,000. And this wasn’t the priority. The priority was to maintain caucus and survive.

I’m telling you right now that there are people lined up at the food bank that are trying to survive. There are seniors that are deciding if they can afford their prescriptions. They are trying to survive. There are people sleeping in their cars wondering where they’re going to drive to next. They are trying to survive. There is a single mom trying to figure out how she’s going to have the conversation with her friends to borrow money or tell their kids that they can’t play hockey this year. She is trying to survive.

This government looks like they’re trying to survive the day. It’s an economic disaster over there. And they can blame whoever they want. They’ve got to look in the mirror.

It’s going to get worse. If the families of British Columbia ran their finances like this government runs theirs…. I can’t imagine. They can’t do that. They don’t have that. Credit cards are maxed out. This government’s credit card is really maxed out.

But we still have an obligation to step up and fulfil the commitments that we make. It’s the right thing to do. I don’t know why we wouldn’t do that. If you’re not going to do it, stand up and defend why you won’t do it. Don’t just nay it. Stand up and say: “Here’s why we won’t do it.” Somebody has got to.

You owe it to the people whose doors you knocked on and who came out there. I had people that came out there and said: “You know what? I really like you, but I need that money, and the Premier said we’re going to get it quick.”

They’re still waiting. Everything else has gone up. Transit fare has gone up, ferry has gone up, and grocery has gone up. Still waiting.

I actually don’t know what, in this House, the numbers would have looked like if people actually knew the reality that this government had no intention of fulfilling this commitment — none. They didn’t. They didn’t believe them on the renters rebate because that was twice. They didn’t believe them on voluntary care because that was twice.

The problem with this is…. I’m not even going to give them credit, because I don’t even think it was genuine. I think it was panic. But in that panic, they gave false hope to people that needed this at such a critical time, and that is wrong.

I don’t know anybody in the circles that come into my office — they need help — that would say: “We don’t need this right now. We think that you guys should focus on hiring more people in the Premier’s office for communications. We think that you should have nine or ten people in a minister’s office making combined salaries of over $1 million. Those are the priorities I think you need to be focused on. I’m good. I’ll just get a third job and see what we can make work.”

That’s not fair. At least if you’re going to have that perspective, get up and defend it. Have that debate.

[4:05 p.m.]

All we hear is “Trump” and “tariffs.” We’re aware, have been for a few months. These decisions were made before that ever happened. That’s the fact. We know that. We’ve got smart people on this side. It’s been proven out time and time again. The numbers don’t lie on that.

Just be honest. Just get up and say: “We never intended to do this. Sorry, our bad.” It was just like the renters rebate. It was just like the free contraception. It was just like when we talked about involuntary care and pretended to be mad. We never intended to do it. Overpromise, underdeliver.

But this time they screwed up. People are angry, and they’re fed up. They see the way this government treats the finances of British Columbia, and they don’t trust them. And they shouldn’t.

Credit ratings don’t trust them either. They see what they spend, whether it’s the Cowichan Hospital, which, by context, is going to be one of the most expensive hospitals in Canada by bed. They’ve seen the fact that even before a shovel goes in the ground, if it ain’t over budget and it ain’t delayed, it ain’t NDP. That’s not good. I wouldn’t even let my kids treat their allowances like this government treats our taxpayer money.

I think the biggest challenge that we have is just being transparent, and I think this amendment is a really good test of where we are. When the Premier gets up and says: “We have to work….” The Premier, right after the election, says: “I’m going to work with every MLA in that House. I don’t care where they are, what they represent. I’m going to work with each of them. If they’ve got a good idea, we’re going to support it.”

This is a great opportunity to do that. Let’s do it. Let’s support good pieces of legislation. It’s not difficult. But if you’re not, get up and defend it. Get up and say: “Hey, I’m sorry I knocked on your door, and I’m sorry I sold you on this promise.” And a couple of the other promises, but we’ll talk about that later. Get up and just say why you won’t do it. Just say why this is a bad idea.

You should have done that, actually, on October 20, when the votes were counted, but you didn’t do that. That never happened. But it goes back to my point, where the Premier says: “We want to work with everybody.”

This is a good amendment that makes a lot of sense. I think that the people would expect that their representative, their MLA, that either campaigned for this or a similar version of this should be able to get up in the House and represent them and speak to it, why they’re going to support it or why they won’t. It’s not that hard. It maybe leads to a few difficult conversations, but I think that’s what we’re here for.

I can tell you that in my riding, we have a lot of low-income seniors that could use this money. Out of my office, every year from March to the end of April, we have sources come in, and they help with the taxes. So I get to see these people come in as they file their taxes, and a lot of them are just stressed. They’re stressed.

Some of them, sadly, are embarrassed, and they have no reason to be embarrassed. They shouldn’t be. This government should be embarrassed. They should be embarrassed that they campaigned on one thing, they barely squeaked out of an election, and then they pulled the rug right out from British Columbians before any talk of tariffs, before any talk of Trump and said: “Yeah, we’ll figure that out, and we’ll get back to you.”

We knew right away that this wasn’t happening, and that’s wrong. But even worse is that when an opportunity is presented to you to do the right thing, you don’t even take that. What’s even worse than that is you don’t even get up and defend why you won’t take it.

[4:10 p.m.]

Again, it’s a privilege. I support this amendment. I hope others support this amendment. Like I said, it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing.

With that, I’ll conclude my remarks. I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I stand today in support of this amendment to Bill 5, which I think has been reflected very well by my colleague, who talks about issues from a very different place demographically than my constituency in Chilliwack. We have different issues there, different needs, a different kind of labour force and population, but everything that he has canvassed and reflected on sounds exactly the same.

I think what we’ve heard and experienced over our time in the House is this need and desperation that people are feeling now. You can take those stories — we hear them over and over again — and it is no different for the constituents of Chilliwack–Cultus Lake.

When I went out door-knocking and started to meet people, many of their concerns top of mind, the first thing that they would want to talk about would be affordability. They would talk about the struggles that they were experiencing.

A single mom who is a nurse with an adult son at home, trying to pay for the rent at that time and for the needs of her son and for herself…. She’s struggling because of the long hours that she has to work, night shifts as a nurse, and still be there for her son, as the only parent in the household. She’s struggling because she doesn’t want him to have to get a job at the age he’s at — be able to focus on his studies. With being there as well, she’s so worn out and so tired from just trying to make ends meet.

Soon I was hearing stories from people at the doors that they were leaving. A lot of people weren’t home. I was surprised to find for-sale signs in many of the places where I was visiting. People were in the midst of packing up their belongings and their family. Many of them were talking about going to other provinces and sharing stories of how there was work there for them, property that they could afford, more space for their children to expand into and to grow into, because these cramped spaces that they’re able to afford in Chilliwack are not good enough.

It’s interesting. As I reflect on some of the statistics that were handed to me in my office when I was elected, I found this common trend of 30 percent. When I looked at this, and my first visit to the food bank…. The Salvation Army is an excellent resource in Chilliwack. They’re doing such good work, and I always want to recognize those people who are caring for all of those that are on the margins and who are struggling. We need those services, absolutely. But the extent that we need them now I’ve never seen, in my lifetime that I’ve grown up in the town of Chilliwack.

When I went to go and tour the services at Salvation Army, they expressed that the food bank lineups have never been at such high demand. We understand from the statistics now that there’s a 30 percent increase in food bank usage, just from 2022. It’s not a long time, but that’s a big jump in the amount of everyday people that have to go to the food bank in order to make ends meet.

[4:15 p.m.]

What they told me was that each day people were lining up earlier and earlier so that they could secure a place at the beginning of the line and not be left with the scraps after everybody else had made their way through. I saw elders, I saw disabled people, I saw veterans, and I saw young moms with baby strollers waiting in that lineup.

What they have to do for working families is shut down the food bank at a certain amount of time so that they can leave food on the shelves. Then those people who are lucky enough to have part-time work are able to come back at the later hour, when they’re off work. They open for two more hours so that those working people can also access their services.

They made that adjustment after they received feedback from people who were saying: “We’re coming here as soon as we can. As soon as I’m done work, the first thing I do is rush here so that I can have a chance to get food for dinner tonight, and you’re empty. You’re closed. You’ve given all the food out.” So they made that adjustment for working people. Mostly they’re finding that it’s single-parent households. In Chilliwack, we have many of those, close to 3,000 single-parent households, and 30 percent are men who are raising their children on their own.

Another number that reflects that 30 percent is that 30 percent of people’s income is going to their rent or their mortgage. But in Chilliwack, we’ve also seen a 30 percent increase in real estate costs.

When I first moved back — that was after studying in the city and doing many things, but being ready to move back home into my own territory — I was looking at the real estate landscape. It seemed possible then for me and my young family to be able to get in at that point. But since then, it has more than doubled for the exact same dwelling. That’s a longer stretch of time, but this 30 percent increase in real estate costs in Chilliwack has been recent, a recent ballooning in those prices.

If we know that the average income for a family in Chilliwack is only $47,000 a year, then how are they to afford almost $3,000 to go towards their mortgage? What that leaves for them is next to nothing, about $300 a week to live on. And who can do that? Who can afford that with grocery prices going up? We know a small bag of groceries…. That is if you’re not buying protein. Meat has gone off the charts. You’re going to leave with a small bag of groceries, and oftentimes it’s $30, $40 and you’ve barely gotten anything.

So when we’re talking about relief like this, it can go a long way for somebody who wants to afford insurance on their car for a year. That is for the people that are lucky enough to have jobs right now in this economy. Many people are looking for work and are not successful. Many people are facing the brink of desperation for the times that they’re in.

Another interesting statistic for Chilliwack is the amount of adult children that have had to what they call boomerang. There’s an actual term for it now. They leave home only to have to come back a few years later, and they have to move in with their parents.

What we know about this situation is that dwellings become cramped. Children are growing up, and they don’t have bedrooms. I live across from a family that has three families now — one grandma, her two adult kids, their spouses and their kids — all living under one roof so that they can afford food, so they don’t have to go to the food bank to make ends meet.

When we talk about the larger picture…. Again, I just want to thank my colleague for the reflection on the many pieces that can impact the struggles that we see. But when we take a look at the larger picture, people really feel a sense of hopelessness right now.

[4:20 p.m.]

You can visually see the difference in a place like Chilliwack. Again, not that many years ago we didn’t see as many people who were visibly struggling — visibly struggling in all parts of town, not just the downtown core but in all parts of town.

Because what we have is a lot of recreational space and campsites, they are now becoming a danger to the forests. They’re contaminating the waterways. They’re starting to infringe upon private properties, steal food from people’s refrigerators that they keep outside or freezers that they keep outside.

We’re on the brink of some real public safety concerns because people are that desperate, and we do not have the resources. You move an encampment, and they pop up another place just like that. I talk to the area coordinators in my constituency all the time about these issues and how dangerous it’s getting in the valley. Private homeowners are at their wits’ end at this point, because they don’t know what to do with their property being stolen, their food being stolen.

This is a huge risk. And it all ties back into this feeling of desperation that people have, whether they cannot find work, whether they’re having a hard time balancing work — single parents — and their kids. To pay that huge mortgage bill or the skyrocketing rents, if they have housing, and then, with what little that they have left over, be able to afford not luxuries, not trips, not sports for their kids, nothing that’s exquisite at all but just the basics of clothing, food, being comfortable….

I reflect on the social programs that we have and the extension of my local government programs, fundraising, all the things that these small not-for-profit societies are doing to keep their doors open so that they can help people. From their heart, that’s what they see, and that’s what they want to do. But even they are overburdened with the amount of people they need to turn away because they don’t have enough resources, because the whole thing is splitting at the seams.

Another example of this mass exodus that we are indeed experiencing…. I’ve looked at the statistics, and it was reflected in the 2025 budget, this example of young families that are leaving British Columbia. Well, they’re not just taking the money or the talent that they may have been able to contribute and infuse into this economy that we so badly need. They’re also taking their small businesses with them, their children that could have lived here and raised families.

When you talk about numbers of people that are leaving the province, we have to think about — I said this before, and I’ll say it again — not just right now, not just our generation, not just the extension of one term of four years that you have in government. The thinking needs to go way beyond.

When you make a promise to people and they start to gear themselves up or start to plan to have that extra money, and they’re kind of counting the days…. I know a lot of people who depend on some of these tax breaks. And then it doesn’t come.

That sort of scramble and shift and what they have to take away…. I know that some people are deciding between medications and food. I know many people that are sleeping in their car, and they’re moving from place to place to place. It’s exactly that reason — because they’re going to be harassed.

[4:25 p.m.]

I know there are many things on the surface that don’t seem like poverty, and they are. There was a woman that was visiting the food bank and getting services, clothing, a lot of help out of the Salvation Army. The workers there said: “Look, she comes in this fancy car, and she’s getting these services. It’s not fair. Optically, it doesn’t look good.”

But because the front-line workers in Chilliwack have made such great relationships with the population, they actually knew who she was, what her circumstance was, and why that was all she had to her name. That was her house and transportation, fleeing a difficult situation.

What I’m getting to here — and what I have experienced since, as I said, knocking on doors, talking to everyday people, the experiences that I’m having now at my office through the many, many cases of people that come to me — is that in these tough times, if a promise is made, then people actually expect you to follow through with it. Not only do they expect you to follow through with the promise, but some of their livelihood actually depends on it.

What I haven’t seen reflected, and it goes with this amendment and other things, is that the breaks that people need are not there. Instead, what we’re doing is we’re taxing everyone else — a new tax here, a new tax for this, a new tax. We’re going to solve this problem by a new tax and a new tax. We’re shaking everyone down for the pennies they have in their pockets and feeling like that is going to now solve the problem that this growing margin of people is facing — homelessness, hunger, hopelessness, angst, addiction, mental health, violence that’s becoming more and more severe.

We are experiencing it, too, in Chilliwack. My nephew was a front store clerk. He worked nights, broke his leg chasing down a criminal, was absolutely told that was not the policy but did it because that’s the kind of person he was.

I told a story about one of my favourite and regular corner stores that I always go to. That young man, when he was attacked at work, didn’t want to return but had to. He’s the only one supporting his family — his mom and his younger sisters and brothers. Had to return to work but was terrified, because he did nothing wrong and nothing to provoke that attack. That is the level of desperation that we’re seeing in our communities, and we’ve never seen that before. We’ve never seen that.

What I urge people to reflect on in this House and on items like this, where we can come together to really make a difference for people on the ground…. You know, some of the things that we talk about and we vote on and we debate…. The tangibility of that is like a little, tiny needle in people’s lives, right? They may notice that if they come across that specific policy in their industry or their work.

When we talk about changes that are going to affect each and every person in British Columbia, and when we know that those changes are so desperately needed, and we play with that anticipation and that hope, I’m not quite sure what kind of message that sends. Not a good one. Not the kind of message that I would want to lead with if it were up to me.

That’s why I’m standing to talk about these things: to try to put it into understandable, feasible language; to give you numbers, examples. Maybe that is the way that people can actually understand.

[4:30 p.m.]

What does it mean to be $200 away every single month, not knowing…? Is my tire going to go this month? Am I going to have an unexpected tax bill, speculation? Am I going to owe more than I thought? Did I file this correctly? There you go. There’s that money flying out of your pocket that you didn’t have in the first place. And now what do you do?

Many people don’t have credit or a safety net or a savings. We know that. They’re far from it. So, again, making a promise that this leader promised to British Columbians, time after time…. I could read these quotes, and I’m sure they’ve been read, that this $1,000 tax cut will help British Columbians right away, only to find out that no, it’s not going to happen. It’s really, really disappointing.

I think we have the opportunity right now to correct that, to make a difference, to come together, to ensure that right now, in the most dire of time that we’ve seen in this province, we are doing everything that we possibly can to make good on promises but also to just follow through on what many of us promised to do when we came here, and that’s make a difference in people’s lives.

I’d just like to also say, in regards to the food banks and some of these trends that we’re seeing, that it’s not just elderly people, it’s not just people who are coming upon hard times and this is temporary for them. The hardest part of this entire reality right now is that we are seeing the highest numbers of children who are going hungry. That, to me, is wrong. It’s heartbreaking. Again, we can only program ourselves out of these issues and tax the rest of the population so much until the whole thing busts apart.

We’ve got a patchwork of ideas and ways to get more money, a creative tax regime, but without an economy to support the needs of the province, then I feel like the trends that we’re experiencing now are only going to get worse. I think that we’ve experienced that already. The hunger among children and the poverty rate is around 126,000 children in British Columbia.

Single-parent households in Indigenous communities are disproportionately affected. We need to find a way, with this initiative and beyond, to continue not to band-aid the issues with quick fixes and reactive solutions but to start to ensure that our systems are giving people their pride in their life and their own initiative back. To get a job because there are jobs available. To get a home because they’ve become affordable. To buy groceries because the prices are not skyrocket high and unattainable.

When I was a young person, that was the normal thing. Before you left high school, you’d go out and get a part-time job. It was unusual to have to do that to be able to support your family. You would do that because it was going to give you skills and put something on your résumé. My brother and my sister did that. I did that. We all worked at different fast-food places.

[4:35 p.m.]

We’re starting to see all of those jobs be taken up because there is no other work. And now young people can’t even get into the basic job market anymore. All of those spaces that normally would have been there are all taken by other people who are desperately looking for work because of the lack of work in the larger economic picture. It’s difficult times right now.

What I campaigned on to come here and to make a difference, in government or not, was to use this platform and my voice to represent those who cannot.

Today I’m standing in support of this amendment. I’m urging everyone to think about it, really think about it. Allow some of these points to hit home for you. Imagine your family, your children and, as I’ve said many times before, your grandchildren. What would you want for them? And what would you want to tell them, at the end of the day, that you stood up for?

For me, that is this amendment to ensure that the basic personal amount for every British Columbian, who files taxes in British Columbia, that they will be able to save $500 on their income taxes and that that relief can come to them very quickly.

I urge everyone to please support this amendment. I support this amendment. On this side of the House, we support an amendment to do this, to stick to what we thought that British Columbians would be getting with this government.

I thank you for the time to stand today and speak to this.

Heather Maahs: Well, I want to thank my colleague for speaking so eloquently about our lovely city that we live in. Everything she said — absolutely 100 percent. And I experienced the same things.

As I’m sitting here listening, I’m reflecting on the purpose of what we’re doing here. We’re debating an amendment, an amendment that the NDP made in the first place, the offer during the election, and then took off the table. We are now offering the opportunity to bring it back.

I know a lot of you probably feel badly hearing the terrible stories, which are all 100 percent true. I think you would probably like to say: “Yeah, you know what? You’re right. We should really vote in favour of this.” But unfortunately, this isn’t actually debate. This has become a solidarity. We’re all going to vote the same way, no matter what anybody says, and it really kind of defeats the whole purpose of debate, which makes me sad. We’re all speaking truth here, and no one on the other side is actually really listening.

A letter from my great-grandmother to my grandmother surfaced a while ago, and in it, she talked about: “Oh, now I’m going to be….” She was one of these women of her time who was working, and she worked for government. She told my grandmother in the letter that she was going to now have to start paying income tax. This was a brand-new thing: income tax, which had not been paid until after wars started, and they had to pay for the wars. Income was based on trade and tariffs.

Imagine that. We didn’t have a bajillion taxes, but countries still managed to make it. They did it by doing the things that businesses do, by improving the economy, as we heard my other colleague talk about today.

[4:40 p.m.]

We give free drugs to addicts, but we can’t give B.C. people a tax break. This is all about winning, winning the vote, but really what we should be doing is making the citizens of B.C. the winners. Give them a break.

I have three children. One of them has packed up and moved to Alberta, so I’m a walking, talking statistic. One-third of our young people have left. He’s doing well for himself, so it was a good move. But it’s a bad move for me because my son, my daughter-in-law and three of my grandchildren are now a flight away.

My own mother is a senior citizen living on low income, and she scrapes. When she needs new hearing aids, she’s in trouble. When she needs new glasses, she’s in trouble. When she needs to go to the dentist, she’s in trouble.

This relatively small tax break would mean so much to so many people. I would urge the four members in the House who are listening to me right now to consider the possibility of voting in favour of this amendment that we’ve put forward.

Let’s be honest. This is a province where the cost of groceries, rent, gas and basic necessities has reached levels that many families simply cannot afford. Our beloved province has become a place where…. We say “$200 away from being broke,” but I can speak for people that I know, and it’s not even $200 away. They’re already in debt. Their strata fees go up, and their mortgage rates go up — no more piano lessons, no more soccer, because they simply can’t afford the fees.

Instead, you put everything on credit cards. Now we have a situation where the interest rates on the credit cards are so high that they just can’t make it, so it’s sell everything or pack up and become homeless in a lot of situations. We know it’s true. This is reality, a reality confirmed by data, by reports and by stories that we’ve heard in this House today. These are the people, the stories of the people that we were elected to represent.

Like my other colleagues, I’ve listened to their struggles. I’ve heard their frustrations. The one thing that has become painfully clear is that far too many people are working harder than ever and still falling behind. They aren’t asking for a handout. They’re just asking for a fair shot, a fighting chance to get ahead, a little bit of breathing room. That’s all. That’s what this amendment is about, and it’s about the promise that was made during the campaign.

This is not a rebate that you have to apply for. This is not a program that gets shuffled out the door. This is real, predictable relief, year after year, budget after budget.

Last year the Premier made a clear promise to the people of British Columbia: a $1,000 annual grocery rebate. He repeated that promise again and again. The problem with making promises you don’t keep is that nobody believes you anymore. Nobody trusts you anymore. So when you say something, you think: “Well, you didn’t come through with the last promise. Why should we believe you this time?” British Columbians deserve better.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’ve listened carefully to the government’s arguments against this proposal. They’ve accused us of wanting to hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators. They’ve tried to frame this amendment as some sort of gift to the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. This amendment is about the working poor, the middle class, the people who are doing all the right things — working full-time jobs, raising kids, paying taxes — and they still can’t get ahead.

Raising the basic personal amount doesn’t help billionaires. It helps the grocery clerk, the small business owner, the home care worker, the single mom. It helps the people who are struggling to pay for food, gas, rent. It’s your sons and your daughters, your mothers and your fathers, your aunts and your uncles. It’s the people on the ground, the ones feeling the most squeeze of rising prices, who will benefit the most from this amendment.

Let’s talk about the broader context that makes this amendment not just advisable but essential. British Columbians are carrying some of the highest consumer debt in the country. That’s a fact. In Vancouver, household debt levels are the highest in Canada. People are maxed out. They’re using credit cards not to take vacations, which I’ve already stated, or to buy luxury goods. They’re paying the rent, and they’re keeping the heat on.

In 2025 alone, food price inflation is projected to rise between 3 percent and 5 percent. For the average family of four, that means up to $800 more just to put food on the table this year, if they’re lucky. Add that to rising rents, rising mortgage payments, rising gas prices, rising utility bills, and no wonder so many British Columbians are feeling the squeeze to the breaking point.

This is not complicated. When families are struggling to cover the basics, the best thing we can do is to let them keep more of their own money, not through complex rebate applications, not through slow-moving bureaucratic programs but directly, predictably, through the tax system.

When we talk about affordability, we can’t do it with a straight face while we continue to tax people who are living below the poverty line. That’s not just bad policy; it is fundamentally unjust. The amendment before us corrects that injustice. It lifts the tax burden off the shoulders of those who can least afford to carry it, and it does so in a way that is transparent, responsible and fair.

The simple truth is this: British Columbia is governed today by one of the most urban-centric administrations in its history. It’s not a smear. It’s not a political spin. It’s a reality that is reflected in where decisions are made, where dollars are allocated, which communities are prioritized or neglected.

If you happen to live outside Metro Vancouver, you feel it in infrastructure that’s crumbling, in hospital ERs that are under-resourced, in classrooms without the basics. You see it in roads that don’t get fixed and bridges that never get built. You see it when the provincial budget lands and once again your region is barely a footnote.

The frustration is only growing. The people of the Fraser Valley, the Thompson-Okanagan, the Kootenays, the North — these aren’t second-class citizens. These are taxpayers, they’re workers, and they’re families. Yet too often they are left waiting and watching as more and more resources are funnelled into the Lower Mainland, with promises that never quite make it east of Hope.

[4:50 p.m.]

This amendment raising the basic personal amount does not solve the urban-rural divide, but it does send a message that no matter where you live, the government sees you, that your ability to put food on the table matters just as someone commuting via SkyTrain. It’s a first step in restoring some equity into a system that has become deeply imbalanced.

There are people in this province who live in communities where the grocery store is an hour’s drive away, where heating bills have doubled and where job opportunities are increasingly scarce. Those people deserve to keep more of what they earn — period. We are simply asking that the government stop taxing people until they earn at least enough to cover the most basic cost of living. We are asking that the tax code reflect reality, not some idealized version of life in this province but the real numbers — groceries, rent, gas, child care, insurance, utilities.

The current basic personal amount is $15,705. Imagine trying to live on that. You can’t. It’s impossible. That figure hasn’t kept pace with inflation. It hasn’t kept pace with the rising cost of living. It hasn’t kept pace with what it actually takes to survive in this province, let alone get ahead. Raising that amount to $22,462, the equivalent of a low-income cutoff, is the least we can do. In fact, I would argue it should only be the beginning.

We have a provincial government that claims to be progressive, that claims to champion affordability, that claims to support working families. But where is that support when families are being taxed below the poverty line? Where is that commitment when real action is proposed and voted down on the basis of partisanship?

You cannot stand on a stage and call yourself a defender of affordability while allowing people earning minimum wage to pay provincial tax. You cannot promise relief to struggling families during an election campaign, only to shelve those promises the moment the votes are counted. You cannot tell British Columbians to wait, to trust, to be patient, when what they need is action.

At the core of this amendment is something far bigger than dollars and cents. At the core of this amendment is an issue of trust. When governments make promises, people listen. When leaders go out in the community and declare that relief is coming, families plan around it. They adjust their expectations. They adjust their budgets. They might even adjust how they vote. I would actually go so far as to say it was a total misrepresentation during the campaign.

When those promises are broken, when they vanish into thin air, people don’t just feel disappointed; they feel misled.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we have had a pretty wide berth here this afternoon. I would warn you against suggesting anybody is misleading anybody.

Heather Maahs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment keeps the promise that was made during the election not through bureaucracy, not through press conferences but through the tax system, efficiently and permanently.

If the Premier and his government are serious about helping British Columbians, they should support this amendment. If they meant what they said about affordability, about urgency, about immediate help, this is their chance to prove it.

The low cutoff in this province, as I mentioned, is $22,462 for a single individual. This is not an arbitrary number. This is the threshold below which Statistics Canada tells us a person is struggling to meet the minimum standard of living. What possible defence can be made for a system that asks the working poor to contribute before they’ve even covered their rent, their heat and their groceries?

[4:55 p.m.]

This isn’t about billionaires. It’s about bus drivers. It’s about care aides. It’s about construction workers and grocery clerks and hairdressers. Let’s be clear. A billionaire in British Columbia doesn’t rely on the personal basic amount to avoid taxes. Their accountants have more complicated strategies than that.

This amendment isn’t about loopholes for the rich. It’s about relief for the working class, it’s about fairness, it’s about aligning the tax system with reality, and it’s about ensuring that the people who are struggling the most are the ones who get help first.

The Premier has said many times that people need help now, that affordability is the priority of this government. I agree with him wholeheartedly. He is absolutely right. But the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that we’re actually prepared to follow through, and we’re inviting that side of the House to join us with this amendment and to make it a reality. It means lifting the burden off the shoulders of those who are already weighed down by the cost of living.

These aren’t hypothetical people. These are constituents. These are families who come into our offices asking for help. These are seniors, seniors who call us because they can’t make their rent; 60 to 70 percent of the people who come into my constituency office or who call or who email are seniors. They are really struggling. They’re not asking for luxury. They’re just asking for fairness.

If we cannot agree across party lines that taxing people into poverty is wrong, then what are we doing? Lifting people up does not just help those individuals. It strengthens our economy, it strengthens our communities, and it strengthens our province.

Here’s the truth: letting struggling families keep more of what they earn is not just compassionate; it’s smart economic policy. We’ve heard that. When you put $500 back into the pocket of someone living paycheque to paycheque, they don’t send that money offshore. They don’t hoard it in a savings account. They spend it right here at home, in B.C., on groceries, on rent, on kids’ clothes, at the local gas station, at the small businesses that are the backbones of our communities.

I’m going to close here, and I would urge members across the aisle to really think about this, to really think about this amendment. Put a face in front of you from the food bank, from your constituency office, when it comes to giving them this financial break.

Elenore Sturko: I am pleased to rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 5. It’s a grocery rebate guarantee brought in by the Leader of the Opposition. I’m really happy to be able to speak to it, because I think back to when I was on the campaign trail, and a lot of people at the door, of course, were talking about affordability. When I spoke to Bill 5 before this amendment, again I mentioned that. I think that affordability, the cost of living and financial uncertainty, is one of the biggest challenges that is facing the province right now.

What’s proposed in this amendment…. I know people have heard it, but I want to reinforce it. This is a rebate that is to benefit everyday British Columbians. The Premier promised in his campaign to be elected that he would provide British Columbians with a $1,000 tax rebate. Then, of course, that promise was broken. The situation changed, the Finance Minister said, and they’ve reneged on that promise.

[5:00 p.m.]

This amendment restores that promise. It restores a commitment to British Columbians to help them by lowering the rate of personal income tax to the extent that it would benefit each individual taxpayer by $500. For a family with two incomes, that would be the $1,000 that could help them out.

It’s really, in this province where we have such an affordability problem, a crisis. It isn’t enough to help with what they really need. We need a lot more relief than that. We need a lot more programs. We need a lot more of the lowering of everyday costs for British Columbians. But $1,000 for a family in a year would certainly help. It would help a lot.

I’m just going to read a couple of quotes here, Mr. Speaker, if you’ll just indulge me, because this is, in fact, our Premier on October 9 of 2024. He says: “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 it.” That, of course, is something that I think we can all agree on.

We don’t always agree on things in this place, but I think agreeing that British Columbians deserve to end the day a little bit ahead is definitely worthwhile, which is why I’m supporting, of course, the amendment to Bill 5, the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act. I really hope that members on both sides of the chamber can come together on this.

My friend and colleague the MLA for Surrey–White Rock brought up what I think is something worth noting. I don’t want to in any way mislead the House, so if I’m wrong, I will withdraw this comment. But as far as I know, we’ve only had one member of government speak to this amendment, which was, of course, the Minister of Finance, who responded when our leader brought this amendment onto the floor.

At that time, she had said the situation in British Columbia had changed, and that’s why the government wasn’t going to be able to help families out with the $1,000 grocery rebate anymore. And yeah, the situation has changed in British Columbia, because we had a government that was handed a surplus of billions of dollars, and they turned that around. The situation changed to where we are now billions of dollars in deficit. So when it came time for that stress test, that challenge, that financial uncertainty that we are facing in this province, the cupboards are bare.

There are a lot of things that make me really sad beyond just thinking about everyday British Columbians that won’t be able to afford the extras, and beyond not affording the extras, just the things that are not extra — people who are struggling just to afford food, medication.

I think a lot of my other colleagues spoke to this as well. One of the members on this side was talking about having constituents — I think it was our House Leader — making those choices between medication and food, paying rent, keeping that roof over their head and food and medication. I, too, have constituents that are in a similar situation.

What makes me pretty frustrated and pretty sad…. Something that I want British Columbians to think about is that I think the difference between giving this break and not is about $3 billion. Our Finance critic might be able to help me out here. Around $3 billion, I think, maybe a little bit more than $3 billion.

But I just want to remind people that just within the last year, 2024 — three significant cost overruns by this government. More than $2 billion, I think just under $3 billion, in fact, about $2.5 billion plus of the overrun, is the cost of the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain.

That’s not for me. I’m not saying that I don’t want the SkyTrain. I definitely do. I know that people in Surrey and Langley and Metro Vancouver are grateful to be able to have that extension. It’s the mismanagement, $2½ billion. That almost paid for the grocery rebate. In addition to that, just announced in the last year, a $1 billion cost overrun at the new Cloverdale hospital before it even broke ground, and a $1 billion cost overrun at the Richmond Hospital.

[5:05 p.m.]

Increasing access to health care, increasing services, building new hospitals — these are good things. But we need proper management of our financial situation. Build hospitals, but do it fiscally responsibly, and manage your budget.

That’s $4½ billion that could have paid for the grocery rebate. Instead of taking care of British Columbians who right now are struggling, the fiscal mismanagement by this government on just these three projects means that they’re not going to get it. The help that British Columbians need has just flown out the window. It’s a shame.

I want to read for you something that comes from a publication from the CBC News, posted January 15, 2025. The headline: “Half of British Columbians $200 Away from Not Being Able to Pay Bills, Survey Finds.” We say stuff in this House, things like: “You know, four in ten British Columbians can’t afford….” People might wonder where we get these things. Which orifice did we pull that out of? We’re politicians, right? It’s rhetoric.

No. A survey of British Columbians found that nearly half of the people living in our province are $200 away from not being able to pay the bills. MNP consumer debt index, conducted by Ipsos, found almost half, 49 percent, of British Columbians do not think they will be able to cover expenses over the next 12 months without going further into debt. Ipsos found that 46 percent of those surveyed are just $200 away from not being able to pay their bills and debt payments, and nearly one-third are already unable to pay them.

So one-third of us in the province already can’t pay the bills, and 18 percent of British Columbians surveyed expected their debt situation to worsen one year from now. This was published at the beginning of 2025. This is probably still during a time when people in British Columbia thought they were getting the grocery rebate.

We’ve had some significant and horrific incidents take place in British Columbia over the last week, and the conversation around mental health has really, I think, in many ways, advanced in our province. I’m grateful for the opportunities that I’ve had to be able to speak about mental health, and I’ve appreciated that members on all sides of this House have agreed that we need to make changes.

One of the things that impacts people’s mental health is the stress of finances, definitely. When you can’t pay the bills, the toll that that takes on people’s mental wellness and the stress that they’re feeling is significant.

When we look holistically at the health and mental health of this province, I think that it would be irresponsible of us not to consider what type of impacts our fiscal situation and even the uncertainty that British Columbians are feeling, certainly now that the NDP has broken a promise of potentially a thousand bucks, a grand, that people in British Columbia were depending on….

They believed you. They believed this government. So I think of all the things that need to be a priority, finding any way possible to ease the financial burden that British Columbians are experiencing right now should be a priority, because it’s a health issue as well.

I would love to hear from members of government that if they don’t support this amendment, please tell me why. Please explain to my constituents why. I think just saying broadly, “Well, the situation has changed….” Knowing, as I said, how much money this government is literally mismanaging away that could have been used to provide relief to British Columbians, I think a deeper explanation is required.

[5:10 p.m.]

Or maybe you’re saving it up for the last part of the debate, because you’re going to surprise us all and support the amendment.

In my constituency, in my riding, Surrey-Cloverdale, there’s an amazing organization. It’s called the Cloverdale Community Kitchen. They provide meals for people in the community. They have a food bank that they operate. They do tremendous work. I’ve had the opportunity to tour there two different times, and one of the things that always struck me was just the variety of products, the things that are both generously donated and purchased with funding that people donate.

I’m always happy to see that when I see the generosity of the community, and I’m always heartbroken when I see things like diapers on the shelf. It’s not because I don’t want people who need diapers to be able to get diapers, but it breaks my heart that young families in this province would have to rely on a food bank or a service of donations to be able to Pampers their child, to be able to put the diapers on them, to be able to get the basic necessities for a little baby in this province, because the cost of living has become such that people are reliant on these services.

When I went there the last time, there was a huge lineup of people. I think that if you close your eyes and you imagine the food bank, I don’t think people would quite be able to imagine who was here at the food bank. It certainly was not what I expected, because I saw young families.

These are not people that are unemployed or living on the fringes of society, although certainly we had people that were very impoverished in the line, people that may be on disability. There was a variety of people, but there were also people there that both of them had jobs, multiple jobs, and still reliant upon donations to be able to feed their kids.

They’re paying taxes. They’re paying taxes, and they deserved to have the grocery rebate promised by this Premier and his government. I just, frankly, can’t understand why they would be as cruel as to turn their back on people that had counted on them.

I think one of the greatest honours that you can have as a British Columbian is to sit in this place. At least it is for me. Honestly, there’s not a day that I have any regrets being in here. I love it. And when I went on the doorstep and I made commitments to people, it is my absolute commitment to follow through with everything that I promise to do. Was it not the same for the members of the government? Did they not intend to follow through? Now is an opportunity to do it, please.

As the Public Safety critic, I also think a lot about the impacts of affordability and poverty on things like domestic violence. I have talked about it in this place before, about being a police officer in the Northwest Territories, where I had the sad task of investigating a lot of domestic violence, dealing with a lot of families deeply in poverty and a lack of housing and social services.

We have similar situations here. When people can’t afford, for example, to move away from domestic violence, they become trapped in situations that they’re at risk. But they can’t go anywhere because where are they going to go? Shelters are full; the affordable housing is full.

Imagine, though, that you suddenly received a tax break of $500 or even a cheque, you know, a bonus that you could even get a hotel for a few days. To be able to stay with a friend and be able to help buy some new things for your kids so that you can leave the situation.

[5:15 p.m.]

Beyond the ability that it gives people to have a sense of freedom when they don’t have the extra money, it’s that stress again that I talked about — the stress of unaffordability and the kind of tension in a family that builds up when they can’t pay the bills. They start arguing, and they start fighting, and if there is violence, we see it go up.

These are not just about buying groceries. There are deeper social issues that are tied to the affordability crisis we have, that are related to crime and that are related to violence against women and against children and that we definitely need to keep in consideration. When you vote in favour of the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act, you are given an opportunity to provide more money back into the hands of someone in B.C. that could be struggling — a mother, a father — and that trickles down to their children.

The cost overruns. You know, we had a little break of a week in here. I was prepared to speak to this amendment the week previous, and I had a list of the expenditures. I didn’t bring it in here with me; I forgot it. In my mind, I can still…. I had compiled a list of, over this NDP government’s tenure as government here, about eight years, how many projects of theirs had cost overruns. Just in cost overruns alone, it was over $17 billion in eight years.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

When it comes to spending money wildly, like it’s going out of style, like they’re printing it in the basement, the province is spending cash like they have this unlimited supply. That’s when it comes to the priorities for them, when it comes to the ability for them to put out a press release or take a picture. But when it comes to people who are struggling, it doesn’t seem to be a priority.

Noting the hour, I reserve my place and would like to adjourn the debate.

Elenore Sturko moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Jessie Sunner: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Nina Krieger: Section C reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Personal Statements

Apology for Comments
Made in the House

Hon. David Eby: Hon. Speaker, I wanted to take the opportunity to rise in the House.

Earlier today during question period, I was intemperate in my language. I used unparliamentary language. For that, I apologize.

I apologize to the members of the House. I’ll endeavour to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock Monday, May 5.

The House adjourned at 5:19 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Water, Land and Resource Stewardship
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A back to order. We are meeting today considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

On Vote 46: ministry operations, $220,818,000 (continued).

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for the detailed answer before we adjourned for lunch there. I will leave the rest of those questions to be responded to in writing. I don’t think there’s a real benefit in just reading in numbers. I wasn’t able to transcribe them fast enough for it to be meaningful. I was also looking for a bit of a regional breakdown as well. We didn’t get into the regions and how that funding is dispersed.

There were another ten or 12 questions there that I will wait for the written responses on. I will read them in at the end if it’s necessary, but I think there’s a process for me to submit those again.

I wanted to move into water. Obviously, it’s the first thing in the ministry, so we’ll start there. I appreciate the staff that have joined us. I want to talk a little bit about licensing and groundwater registration, to start. I’m curious on how many water licences were issued in the ’24-25 season, and how many we expect are going to be processed this year?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you to the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen.

I read those numbers in a confusing way, so I apologize. We will get those to you quickly.

In terms of the question you just asked, in 2024, there were 514 water licence applications received by the province, and 213 application decisions were made that resulted in the issuance of new water licences. Ten licence refusal decisions were made. That was in 2024.

In 2025, so far, 132 water licence applications have been received as of April 28 of this year. We project that between 500 and 550 applications may be received by the end of 2025. And 53 application decisions have been made as of April 28 of this year that resulted in the issuance of new water licences. We project between 200 and 230 new water licences may be issued by the end of 2025. So far this year there have been three licence refusal decisions.

[1:10 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Going with the first number for 2024, you said 514 applications, 213 processed. What’s the difference? Are they ones that are in backlog that didn’t meet requirements or were denied?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for your question.

Of the 213 applications that resulted in the issuance of new water licences in 2024…. How we make those decisions is we search for the priority water licences — for example, ones that support human health and safety, or if they’re related to homes or home-building or key priorities, as well, for the province.

They may be either in the backlog or new applications, but the ones we don’t get to — the 514 that you referred to — just remain in the queue.

Donegal Wilson: It’s almost like we orchestrated it. My next question is: how many are in the queue?

Hon. Randene Neill: There was math involved there. Sorry, that’s why it took a while. Currently in the queue: from 2024, 291 applications; so far in 2025, 76 applications; for a total of 367 in the queue for 2024-2025.

Donegal Wilson: Do we have any in the queue prior to that, or is everything caught up to 2024?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the questions.

Total water licences in the queue as of February 2025 is 2,045, and that includes the 367 that we just previously mentioned for the last two years.

Donegal Wilson: That’s a pretty significant number, a lot more than I was expecting. How many staff do we have that are working on these applications?

I’m assuming that we’re starting at the oldest and working our way forward. What is the process for how we’re getting through that backlog? What is the average time it’s taking to process those applications? I’m assuming those are outliers.

Hon. Randene Neill: I will start with this. We currently have 101 water authorization staff. They work on permitting and other related work. That includes monitoring and drought and those sorts of duties.

In the last year, we actually were able to process 139 applications faster than they came in. So we’re making a bit of progress — not a lot. And the average processing days it takes to process one water application is about 344 days.

Donegal Wilson: Is there a maximum length of time where those applications just fall off the radar, or do they stay on the books forever? What is communicated to the applicant around the time frame of expectations when they make the application?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

The water applications do not expire; they stay in queue. As we mentioned earlier, we try to surface those applications that are urgent. Ones that are facing drought conditions, health issues and housing are the ones that the government issues as priority baskets.

When the applications first come in, we communicate clearly to the applicant that our turnover times are not sufficient, but we also give them an estimated time that we think their application will be in queue. When we near the end of that estimated time that we think their application is going to be in queue, we contact them to either say: “We’re on schedule” or “We’re behind schedule.” And then we give them an updated estimated timeline, if that’s what we need to do.

Donegal Wilson: What is our estimate on how many groundwater users right now are unlicensed in the province?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Apologies for the delay.

In 2016, when the Water Sustainability Act came in, there was an estimate that there were probably about 20,000 unlicensed users in this province. There are 7,867 existing water users that have applied since 2016 that are still waiting in the queue to get permitted.

The delay was caused by…. We were trying to figure out if we could give you a number of how many new unlicensed groundwater users there are, and we either don’t have that number or couldn’t find it. If we can find it, we’ll definitely give it to you.

Donegal Wilson: So those 7,867 are in a different queue, or are they part of the original queue?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We found some updated numbers, which I’ll read to you, and if they don’t answer the question, we can go further on this.

As of October 2022, we had 5,829 existing-use groundwater applications. In February of 2025, so almost three years later, we had 4,697. So we were able to process 1,132 in that time.

In October 2022, we had…. Actually, you know what? I’m not going to read this out, because I’m not sure it’s going to answer your question.

It’s a different category for groundwater applications. In October 2022, we had 43 new groundwater applications. As of February 2025, we had 33, so we reduced that number by ten.

Donegal Wilson: That sort of answered the question, but do we still have 7,867 existing water users that are waiting to be licensed?

Hon. Randene Neill: Hopefully, this provides the clarity. As of February 2025, out of that number that we gave you earlier, the 7,867, we currently have 4,697 still waiting in the queue.

Donegal Wilson: We have 2,000 in one queue, and we have 4,700 applications sitting in another queue. Am I not understanding the queues?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Hopefully, this clears it up for you.

Our entire water caseload…. We have different subqueues, like existing water, previously existing water, new groundwater applications, total water applications.

The breakdown of our entire water application caseload as of February of this year, 2025, still waiting in queue: existing-use groundwater, 4,697. For section 11 applications, which are changes in and around a stream, we have 500. For new groundwater applications, we have 33. For section 10 applications, we have 130. For water licence applications, we have 2,045. And for abandonments, we have 209.

Donegal Wilson: Does your sheet have the total, or are you going to make me do the math?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for that. I actually meant to do that, and I totally forgot. The total is 7,614.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate that. Yeah, obviously that was read in, but it would be good if we could have that, if I could get a copy of that when we’re done.

Switching to water rents. Do we have a mechanism to audit the usage versus what is licensed?

Hon. Randene Neill: Basically, our two mechanisms to determine the usage of water in this province are water monitors and also the number of licence applications. Prior to 2016, we had no way to measure groundwater use at all.

The challenge now that we still have is that if we do issue a licence for a farm, for example, that gives them a certain amount of water use per day, we don’t know if they hit that target. They could consistently come under it, and we have no way of determining that.

Donegal Wilson: We also don’t know if they’re pulling more than that.

[1:40 p.m.]

Then looking at the numbers that you provided previously, it looks like more than half of water users aren’t even in the application process. By the estimation of…. I think it was 20,000 or 22,000 that we think are there. We’re at 7,000, almost 8,000, that have registered as existing users. So there’s a large segment we don’t even know…. We don’t even know if our estimate was a valid number.

When we’re making those land use decisions around the water, how do we…? What matrix do you have for those decisions when you don’t know if they’re taking more or less than they were? We know we have water licences that possibly aren’t drawing anything; we probably have water licences that are drawing more. So how do we…? What is the matrix for decision-making?

Are those water licences impacting future water licence applications? We don’t know. Are we being too conservative, or are we not being conservative enough, I guess, is the direction. I don’t know if the question was clear there.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

We’ll answer your first question first: are we too conservative or not conservative enough? We know that’s not a political question. We’ll answer it by saying that we err on the side of caution. We assume that every licence is using its max capability.

The water team does have a matrix. They basically look at a holistic view of what the environment can provide, with monitoring and the number of licences given. We look to see how much water is available — what groundwater exists, what wells are in the area, what the known volumes are in the area. We also look at the hydrological connectivity between surface and groundwater.

Overall, though, I think I can say with some certainty that we are in a much, much better position in terms of our water than we were in 2016, but we still have a long way to go.

Donegal Wilson: I have more questions on that, but for the sake of time, I’m going to move on.

Drought, since we went there. How are users prioritized during a drought declaration, and how is that communicated?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

Our priority in times of drought is always human health and human safety, so drinking water is always our top priority. We take several steps.

First, we always set voluntary guidelines. You see those kinds of water restrictions that local governments do every year as well, but those voluntary guidelines are expected not just of individuals but also of industry. Those are ways to just be really cognizant of the fact that we’re heading into the summer and the drought season. We ask people to do a list of things to try and reduce their water use.

In terms of unlicensed users, we can use something called graduated enforcement, where we can actually send out natural resource officers to let people know that we’re heading into drought and remind them that if they don’t have a licence and they’re a new user, they need to wait to apply for a licence.

In terms of licensed users, we have drought tables, and those are used at the local level. We keep people informed about what the water levels look like and what the drought tables look like.

I just want to point out that this was in my mandate letter by the Premier: to work with communities affected by drought or expected to face water shortages and to support community-based priority-setting between industrial, agricultural, residential and environmental uses for water.

Our job is to ensure better coordination between water regulators and local communities in advance of drought to support effective response during an emergency. We know that those decisions are best made at a local level, at local water tables where local governments and community and small business and agriculture come together to make those choices about the priority in their community for water uses in times of drought.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that. Yeah, I think there are some tough decisions that’ll be coming up versus agriculture and tourism. I live in the Similkameen Valley. What’s more important — the cattle, the peach trees, the vines? How is that going to be prioritized?

[1:50 p.m.]

The first-in-time model that was shared as part of the need to register…. With that many applications still sitting in the queue, what happens with the ones that never did? The first-in-time all got letters saying that they needed to curtail, but the people that never registered did not get the letters. What is the enforcement or the strategy for the never-did group?

Hon. Randene Neill: First, I want to thank you for….

Your riding, Boundary-Similkameen, I think, is one of the largest ridings in this province and the second most beautiful after Powell River–Sunshine Coast. But I hear you.

When I go and visit my parents, who live in the Okanagan, it’s stressful there in the summer. You can sit and watch the lightning strikes hit the mountain. We’re potentially in a drought position. It’s so tough. Also, in 2021, in my riding of the Sunshine Coast, we literally had to decide to turn off water to the farmers. That is something in a temperate rainforest…. We never, ever thought we’d have to face that choice.

In your question, those first-in-time, first-in-right users who apply to get licences versus those who never did…. All we want to do is get them to apply for a licence, because all we want to do is monitor the water. So our biggest….

What we do is really try and talk to different organizations — agriculture organizations, industry organizations, individuals — to really work on them. Since 2016, we’ve been doing this to get them to apply for a licence. Because at the end of the day, all we want to do is be able to monitor the amount of water in a watershed so we can ensure that we have enough water for everyone.

For those who never did, as you suggested, there is graduated enforcement or graduated compliance. That’s where we send natural resource officers out to talk to folks.

[1:55 p.m.]

When we get into times of drought, people get really scared, so if they notice a neighbour, who doesn’t have a licence, using water, we often get phone calls. We tend to get a list of those folks who haven’t applied for licences. We’ll go out and talk to them, encourage them to apply, and let them know what, potentially, the penalties are that can be applied to them for not complying and not getting a licence and illegally using the water.

Donegal Wilson: I think that’s pretty much what I assumed, that we were counting on neighbours to tattle, for lack of a better word, on their neighbours.

With the queue that we saw, the other challenge, I would think, is that we have 7,000 people to get through. What are we doing to ramp up staff if we are also doing education and outreach to try to get people to register and we’re sending natural resource officers out to enforce?

It takes a year to get an application, and we have a queue of 7,000. I’m a little confused on the priority of getting those people to apply when we’re not processing the applications.

Hon. Randene Neill: I want to thank you for this question, because this is something that we grapple with all the time, and in fact, permitting and speeding up permitting is something that is also in my mandate letter. This is something that our team takes incredibly seriously.

Your question was: what are we doing to ramp up staff to try and speed up the process of the applications and improving most of the applications?

Once again, it’s not just speeding up the application process, although that is a big part of our portfolio and what we are dedicated to do and what is in our mandate. It is also working with folks to teach them about drought and doing a huge education campaign and sending people letters when we’re in times of drought, rural communities, to say we’re heading into a drought.

We have a website that is publicly available for drought tables. We have the river forecast centre, which is world-renowned, to look at those types of numbers and water predictions as well.

[2:00 p.m.]

I think that since 2016 we have worked on permitting reform. The status quo isn’t acceptable. We understand that. We know that. It’s obvious to you. We are going to do our very best, and we’re enacting a lot of things to make permitting more efficient and speed up the process.

Donegal Wilson: While I appreciate, “We’re trying, and we see the problem,” I also am a finance person, and when we look at the budget, there’s no more money. So how are we ramping up, and where are we finding those efficiencies to meet that backlog?

Hon. Randene Neill: In 2022, the Treasury Board approved $77.83 million to advance permitting. That is the equivalent of 203 FTEs across seven natural resource ministries.

Donegal Wilson: So in 2022, the $77.83 million was announced across many ministries. How much is left and specific to this ministry for the implementation of the water licensing?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

Of that $77.83 million, $27.139 million came to WLRS. The funding was dispersed across all seven of those ministries to fill key positions in permitting. They weren’t specifically going to different things like permitting for housing or other issues. They were addressing systemic change for permitting in general — to take a holistic view across ministries; to target backlogs in priority areas like we mentioned earlier in housing and, in many cases, areas that were in drought; and to look for long-term sustainable permitting solutions.

Donegal Wilson: To put a pin in that, we had $27 million to improve permitting, but we’re still 7,000 in backlogs, and the actual improvements made aren’t adequate.

Is that funding continuing in this fiscal year, and how much will you have in this fiscal year?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question that, hopefully, adds some clarity.

All of the positions that I mentioned earlier remain filled in this fiscal. I do want to clarify, because your question was specifically about water licences, that money was used to create permitting efficiencies. I wanted to give you a couple of examples to let you know about what the priorities have been and what we’re working on.

For example, in housing, we’ve cleared the backlog. It used to take 257 days for an application to go through. It now takes 108 days. That’s a 58 percent reduction in the time it takes.

A small example, related to water. the riparian area protection regulation. We have basically cleared that backlog, for example. It used to take up to a year for permitting, and we can do a 30-day turnaround time on it now.

Again, we’re moving in the right direction. We know the status quo isn’t satisfactory, but we’re still working really hard, and we will continue to work hard to reduce the permitting times.

Donegal Wilson: I am going to pass it over to my colleague from Delta South, who has a couple of questions, just to be respectful of his time, and then I’ll continue.

Ian Paton: It was your government that brought in the agricultural land reserve in 1973. The Agriculture Minister’s mandate letter talks about access to farming as a career for aspiring farmers. It talks about expanding affordability and food security in the province by working with farmers to find ways to control costs and strengthening our regional food systems by supporting farming, expanding local food processing, identifying supply chain disruption vulnerabilities and working with food and beverage producers who have been impacted by weather-related crop losses.

It goes on to talk about the very importance, in the minister’s mandate letter, of the continuation of public support for the agricultural land reserve, including protection of B.C. families from food price shocks, promotion of financial success, working with farmers and food processors throughout the province and encouraging the saving of good agricultural land in this province.

I brought this up before, about this wonderful 150 acres of prime agricultural land in Cowichan Bay on Vancouver Island. I’ve been on this for about three years now. I’ve toured the property. I’ve done videos. I’ve done op-eds about the property. I’ve done many media interviews about this property.

I’ve been a good friend with the farmer, Gerald Poelman, that farmed these 150 acres. He grew corn for dairy cattle in the general area. He grew grass for hay and silage for dairy cattle in the general area. It’s an absolutely beautiful piece of farmland. This farmland supported hundreds of local livestock in that Cowichan Bay area on dairy farms. This farm was owned by the Dinsdale family.

Many years ago the Nature Trust of B.C., in collaboration with Ducks Unlimited, purchased these 150 acres of prime farmland in Cowichan Bay. Now, unbelievably, the Nature Trust of B.C. actually made application to the Agricultural Land Commission to remove this piece of land from active agriculture by breaching the dike that goes around this farmland at the foot of Cowichan Bay so that ocean water can roar in and flood these 150 acres of prime farmland.

At the end of the Cowichan Bay Road are other farmers and residents who are there that have wells. There is a huge aquifer underneath this farmland, these 150 acres. They draw the drinking water from this well, as well as for livestock. If the salt water is allowed to rush in and destroy these 150 acres of farmland, it will also destroy the aquifer and infect the aquifer with salt water, which will affect all the drinking water for many residents around Cowichan Bay.

[2:15 p.m.]

I can go on to tell you that Active Earth hydrologists did an in-depth study and in their report stated that this would, without a doubt, containment of the aquifer…. It’d have devastating effect on all the wells in the area, including the Kidd well, which serves close to 1,000 homes, the seaside village of Cowichan Bay and all of the Cowichan Bay area.

The historic Dinsdale Farm in Cowichan Bay has grown tremendous agricultural crops for over 100 years. To the bewilderment of local farmers who were leasing this land, they were told to cease farming, as the Nature Trust of B.C. planned to breach the dike and flood the entire ALR-designated farmland with tidal seawater.

Believe it or not, on February 28, 2024, the applicant to the Nature Trust of B.C. and Ducks Unlimited…. The application to remove the dike and flood this piece of farmland was made by Jesse Patterson from the actual government ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. He actually, as a member of government bureaucracy, was the one making the application on behalf of the NDP government to flood this piece of prime farmland. I find this incredible.

Will the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship confirm that the NDP government and ministry staff support the flooding and ultimate destruction of this valuable 150 acres of farmland in Cowichan Bay?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, so much for your question.

First, I just want to say that our team is very aware of the potential saltwater impacts on drinking water. We have been doing extensive testing on it, and so far preliminary testing looks like the salt water has no effect on the drinking water. That is still preliminary.

[2:20 p.m.]

Secondly, and I know that you’re incredibly aware of this issue, there are two steps here. The first step is that this decision is currently before the Agricultural Land Commission. This is their responsibility, under their tenure. And secondly, WLRS is responsible for the decommissioning of the dams. Once a decision is made by the ALC, then our statutory decision–maker will look at that second ask of decommissioning the dams.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

My question to the minister: would you not find it to be a conflict of interest that a member of your own bureaucracy of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship should be making an application to remove this farmland from the ALR to a third-party tribunal, which is known as the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for the question, Member. In terms of your first question, I’ll say, simply that no, it is not a conflict.

Expanding on your other question a little bit…. We’re fighting climate change right now. We’re in a time of climate change, and what we’re trying to do is help local areas have a say in governing their own watersheds and their own water security. Water is such an incredibly important natural resource for us right now.

One success story in the area that you’re talking about is the Koksilah estuary restoration project. This is a class 1 estuary project that has incredibly high biological significance not just for that area but all across the province. It’s a partnership between the Cowichan Tribes, the province and federal agencies to restore the health of the estuary, and that’s to do several things: to conserve the biodiversity, to protect the local community and to revitalize Indigenous food systems. This will benefit everybody in the area.

You know, we’re in a time of climate change, and a lot of people would say climate crisis. It is all of our responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that we restore the biological integrity of our province.

Ian Paton: I would suggest that all the people sitting on that side of that desk have not even seen this property. I’ve seen this property many, many times.

Twenty-five years ago, they tried an experiment exactly as you’re talking about. They flooded a portion of the farmland. To this day, you can look at it — if anybody ever goes there from bureaucracy — to see the fence posts of the farm that used to be there. It’s a complete dead piece of land that was ruined by salt water. There’s nothing beneficial to salmon or to birds or to anything.

The migrating wildlife — what they want is agricultural land, to feed on leftover grain and corn and potatoes, and all those different things. They don’t want a dead piece of land that was flooded out by salt water. This makes no sense, what you’re telling me: to flood another 150 acres of farmland in Cowichan Bay.

[2:25 p.m.]

What I’ve seen in my eight years here under the NDP government is a death by a thousand cuts of more agricultural land being lost in this province.

To the minister, as a member of the environment and land use committee, you have the power to nullify this craziness going on. I’m asking you today: would you stand up and nullify this flooding of the 150 acres of farmland in Cowichan Bay?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, member for Delta South, for the question.

I do just want to clarify. Every single one of our staff has said: “Hold on, we’ve been to the site.” They’re very aware of it, over multiple years.

Secondly, in terms of the environment and land use committee, I would never presuppose or assume to presuppose or make a decision on behalf of the other members of that committee.

Ian Paton: I don’t want to take up too much time. I’m going to move on to another subject. Thank you for your responses. I’m very passionate about this issue.

Back when I was on Delta city council, I made two different trips to Ottawa with the mayor and city manager to try and get funding for dredging of our secondary channels in Ladner and Steveston. At one time, we became successful, through the Port of Vancouver, through the province of B.C., through Delta and Richmond, to come up with about $10 million. The project actually took place back in about 2015.

Since then, there’s been no funding whatsoever. What we really need is simply…. You know, in today’s economics, $2 million a year is not a lot of money to do maintenance of the secondary channels in Ladner and Steveston.

We can’t forget that Ladner is a historic fishing town. We have marinas there for commercial fishboats. We have fish-processing plants, and boats cannot get in and out to even get to these fish-processing plants because of the silt that’s built up.

Now, the former Minister of FLNRO, Doug Donaldson — I took him on a boat tour of the secondary channel about three or four years ago.

I know the minister took a boat tour just recently, a month and a half ago or so, of our secondary channels in Ladner to see just how bad it is not only for our commercial boats and recreational boaters but for our float homes. On low tide, our float homes are literally sitting on an angle, which is compromising their natural gas lines, their septic hookups — all these different things.

My question to the minister: after your tour of our secondary channels in Ladner a month and a half ago or two months ago, what have you come up with for any sort of plans between the provincial government, the Port of Vancouver and the federal government to eventually get us some money to get some dredging accomplished?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for your question.

All we can do is, literally, be blunt here. Yes, the mayor of Delta, a whole bunch of float home owners and…. In fact, I’m meeting with several more float home owners next week, I think. I remember the Coast Guard took us on that secondary channel, and at low tide he can’t even get through the channel, so if there’s an emergency, he can’t get to that emergency. It is a critical problem.

In the few weeks since I’ve been on that tour, there was a federal election. Now we know who’s going to form government. So my suggestion is: let’s just cross party lines and come up with a plan, because currently there is no plan. This is something that the federal government was in charge of until 2008, I think. And then they just kind of absolved themselves of the issue, leaving a multi-million-dollar problem that local governments and the province are left to contend with, and First Nations as well.

My suggestion is…. There are a lot of people who are really dedicated to finding a permanent, proactive solution and finding ways to get the money to do the proper dredging that’s needed. Maybe we can start working on that together, because I know it’s a critical issue. I know the MLA for Richmond-Steveston is very concerned about it, too, as well as many First Nations. This is something that we need to come together and work on together.

Ian Paton: Just a side comment. I find it quite amazing that the new president or CEO of the Vancouver Port Authority has told us that they’re spending $31 million a year dredging the main channel as far as New Westminster to get our ships up. The Port of Vancouver can’t find any money whatsoever to help out some of the secondary channels, yet they’ll spend $31 million on the main channel.

My final question to the minister. This comes from what was formerly known as the Ladner Sediment Group or float home owners association. They were told by WLRS that they are getting out of the residential tenures of Crown land. This is in the land use operational policy. It essentially removes the potential for new float homes and puts those that own float homes at risk of losing their investments.

Owners purchased or built these float homes through provincial and municipal processes and are limited to cash sale buyers now. “As our current lease is near maturity, our investments will not be saleable.” For those who bought the foreshore property for the main reason for the first right over the water lot, these rights are slowly being taken away, and they’re asking if the Minister of WLRS will revoke this policy.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for the question. I’m glad you asked the question, because actually I wasn’t aware of this, so now I’ve got some clarity for you.

We understand that there are several current leases that are nearing maturity. If they do mature, they will just flip to a month-to-month lease, and we will continue to do that while we look for long-lasting, more permanent solutions. What we can say is local governments are very interested in helping us find those long-lasting, permanent solutions, so we will continue to do that as well.

There is a moratorium right now on new float home tenures because of the problems that you so eloquently described. Some of them are listing at low tide right now. We need to figure out a proactive solution for how we can manage the dredging on those secondary channels, and then, potentially, we can look at issuing and opening up new tenures for float homes again.

Donegal Wilson: Just while we’re talking about dredging, is the only issue around dredging specifically funding for dredging, or is there a backlog of permitting and permissions that they also need to get through to do dredging?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

Yes, their dredging does come under permitting as part of the Water Sustainability Act, since 2016.

[2:40 p.m.]

One of the earlier numbers I talked to you about…. Permitting applications for dredging come under section 11, changes in and about a stream. As of February 2025, there were 500 applications in the queue.

I do want to mention, too, it’s not just permitting that we’re looking at and not just a lack of funding. It’s also environmental issues. White sturgeon habitat, for example. Those are all issues that we need to look at when we look at issues in in the Fraser.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, I think that’s why I asked the question. My experience is as soon as you want to move anything in the water, it impacts all the way down the line. I assumed there was a lot more than just money needed as well as political will to do some dredging.

I’m going to loop back to a conversation that we had earlier. The minister was so gracious to say that health and safety of people, and drinking water, is our first priority, so I’m going to switch to drinking water. I am going to speak from the Boundary-Similkameen, just because it is my riding, but I know that this issue is universal across B.C., and especially pinpointed in rural B.C. While I speak about the Boundary-Similkameen, I think that these are examples that will be applicable across the province.

I’m wondering if we know how many communities were on boil-water advisory at any point in time in the last six months.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

Since 2003, the Drinking Water Protection Act has been the principal provincial statute concerning drinking water protection and remains the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to administer and the regional health authorities to implement and enforce.

However, the regional health authorities are responsible for issuing all boil-water advisories. The list is public, so I can read it out if you want the numbers.

As of April 30, 2025, the breakdown of boil-water advisories issued by regional health authorities is as follows: Island Health, 36 boil-water advisories; Island Health, 37; Coastal Health, 56; Northern Health, 105; Interior Health, 503; Fraser Health, five. Total advisories, 706.

Donegal Wilson: I think those numbers are reflective, why I’m going to speak about my riding specifically, being in the 503 in Interior Health.

Can you tell me whether those numbers include smaller, privately owned or managed water systems?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. You are right, Member. The short answer is yes, these are all on small water systems. Generally, boil-water advisories are issued for the smaller, more rural water systems because that’s where the aging infrastructure is. I know. I have dozens in my riding as well. So yes, you’re correct.

Donegal Wilson: What I’ve learned recently having gone through a process with some residents up at Heritage Hills on Skaha Lake, where their water infrastructure was privately owned, put in when the development was built, I believe, in the early ’90s…. Might have been the ’80s. The upgrades that are required to their water system to make their drinking water usable are $23 million. This is being assessed on 321 doors in the community. And the direction path forward they have been provided….

Because the private water owner obviously does not have $23 million, and there is a segment of those 321 doors that also has a sewer upgrade that’s required for them to be able to continue to flush their toilets, the only option they were really able to do was either they were all going to have to pay $65,000 or $84,000, depending on if they needed the sewer upgrade as well, or they could vote to move their assets into the regional district, which did not take away the liability of the $23 million. It just allowed those residents to amortize that over 25 or 30 years, depending how they chose.

Those residents have made that choice to move their assets into the regional district in the hope that they’re going to be eligible for grant funding by making that move. One of the key things in making drinking water our first priority…. It also says that we are going to make it affordable. For these particular residents, that’s $2,500 a year when it was amortized, plus an increase, and a meter that is now required on their houses, which will increase their water bills, also, to another…. It could be up to $2,000 — we’re still assessing — per resident.

How is it the intent or the policy, going forward, that the only way that these systems can be funded is by moving them into a municipality or a regional district that’s willing to take on that liability?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for your question.

I do just want to let you know that regardless of type or size, all water systems are expected to be financially self-sufficient, setting water rates appropriately to operate, maintain, upgrade and replace their infrastructure.

That said, I do want to acknowledge what you are finding in your riding is that it is an expensive, complicated issue. It’s not one shared solely by WLRS, this ministry, alone. The question you’re asking, for the extent of moving water infrastructure into municipalities, is the responsibility of Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

We do share and partner in that, as does the public health officer, where she does an annual report into drinking water and drinking water safety. She does study this issue, and she has come to the conclusion in her report that smaller water systems aren’t resilient, especially over the long term. This is something that we are all learning and understand.

What we’re looking to, in terms of our water security and sustainability, is resiliency. So when we know that these smaller water systems aren’t as resilient, we have to look at better, longer-term solutions. That’s what we’re doing in partnership with Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Again, it’s not inexpensive; it’s incredibly expensive. And there are so many of these smaller water infrastructure and private systems that we need to work on. We will work on these closely with the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Donegal Wilson: I could repeat the story in about 12 different subdivisions within my one corner of my riding. We were joking a little bit about it before we started.

But one of the challenges…. Is it not the role of WLRS to be monitoring these private water systems to ensure that they are meeting that obligation of ensuring they have the funding available when these things happen? Why are so many small water systems in the position they are in? Somebody, I assume, should have been checking on them.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question, Member. A couple of things I just want to point out.

First of all, this ministry does regulate private water utilities, and we do work with private companies to do the upgrades that are necessary. It is the private companies’ responsibility to do those upgrades.

But as you so rightly point out, we’re also aware of the costs to upgrade that, often prohibitively expensive. And often it’s not just the drinking water pipes that need to be upgraded; it’s also the sewage or other infrastructure. In fact, that’s what we’re facing across the province right now. Roads and bridges — I’m sure you have many examples in your riding. I know I have many in mine. These types of upgrades are needed across the board.

So we do regulate the private water utilities, but it is the private water companies’ responsibility. We’re also aware of the cost and the rate impact that is on homeowners.

Donegal Wilson: I just heard clearly that it is the manager of the small operator, small water system’s job to ensure that the money is there to manage and replace the infrastructure.

I will ask a question on behalf of my colleague from Penticton-Summerland because she’s not here. I was at a meeting, very clearly, where the province took over management of a water system referred to as Sage Mesa. I believe it was in the early ’90s. Don’t quote me on that, but it has been a significant period of time.

Those residents have just been told that it’s a $32 million assessment to them to fix their water. The province was the operator and has not been adequately funding or ready to replace the needed infrastructure. What happens in that case?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. Yes, we do have a briefing on this. Sage Mesa owns and operates a water utility near Penticton, providing service to about 250 homes.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

It is, indeed, managed by the province following the seizure in 1990 for mismanagement. I’ve been told a few times forcefully by my ADM that the province does not want to do this role. We do not want to be managing this. But I do want to say that the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen actually operates the system on behalf of the comptroller of water rights, which is under this ministry.

Also, the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen is conducting a referendum process now to acquire the Sage Mesa utility, which is currently managed reluctantly by the province through the comptroller of water rights. The comptroller is in support of the acquisition, as the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen has access to grants and long-term borrowing and potentially reducing the cost to customers and the timeline for completion of the system rebuild.

I’ll read this last point: “If the referendum fails, the comptroller will continue to manage the utility and will need to consider a special levy to raise the required funds for the necessary upgrades.”

Again, this is not an outcome that the province ever wanted. It was seized because of mismanagement in the 1990s, and we are actively working with the homeowners to come up with the best solution for them.

Donegal Wilson: Well, I understand the answer, and I understand that we don’t want these systems. I can tell you that we’re going to get these systems because the reality is these homeowners don’t have that money. The regional district does not have the money to continue to borrow to take on liability for these private systems.

In the case of Sage Mesa, the province was the operator, and the province stated clearly before that the operator is responsible to make sure that they’re collecting enough fees and things to manage and replace the infrastructure. The province has been managing this infrastructure since 1994, and now we’re being told that the owners will just be levied the $32 million because the province doesn’t have any money to do it.

The operator…. While there is a referendum planned, it has not actually been planned yet. It’s just something that’s being considered. The operator has forbidden their staff from climbing on the tower. The tower is that unsafe that it’s not safe for people to walk on the tower to fix the water. That tower is above these homes. It is in imminent failure, and the province is the operator.

I think that there is a different story with Sage Mesa, and I’d like to hear what the minister’s plan is as operator of that water.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for the follow-up question.

First, yeah, we do want to acknowledge this is a growing problem all over the province in some cases, potentially. My answer is going to be similar to the answer I just gave you. The province, through mismanagement in 1990, became the reluctant manager of Sage Mesa.

We’re looking for a pathway to a permanent solution here, and the first one is working with the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen to conduct a referendum process to acquire the Sage Mesa utility, which is currently managed by the province through the comptroller of water rights. If that does fall through, we will continue to manage the utility, and we’ll need to consider a special levy to raise the required funds for the necessary upgrades.

Donegal Wilson: Well, while I understand the position you’re in, I still think that that answer is insufficient in that if this was a private water operator, they would be fined for not meeting the minimum requirements of the act.

How do we allow the government to manage a utility for 30 years and not have the funds available to them to replace or manage it? And threaten with a levy, which is exactly what the owners will get anyway. With 121 doors, I think it was — don’t quote me on that, but it’s somewhere in that neighbourhood — and a $32 million bill that levy is going to be beyond….

With the downloading being to the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, what supports and funding are available for these multiple private water systems that are going to be going to the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen? What borrowing power are they going to have when they have so much out there to manage these projects? How are they going to manage them all?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, again, for your question.

I understand the frustration around this issue. The simple answer is it costs money to provide water to these homes and these communities. Especially these smaller water systems…. As they age, the cost increases, and then the cost for replacement and upgrade increases even more. This is something that we hear from local governments at UBCM each year, and they’re facing similar problems all across the province.

The last thing I’ll say is that I want to just make clear that the water systems infrastructure responsibility rests with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and the federal government.

Donegal Wilson: I think the message is being heard, but it’s not being delivered, as the budgets don’t necessarily reflect what we’re seeing on the ground and the need.

If you’re hearing it at UBCM, you’re hearing it from every community in my riding. We need the budget. We need a line item. We need to start addressing this.

I’ll just turn to new development. What are we doing today to prevent this scenario from repeating itself?

I have an application for a new subdivision in my riding. It’s pretty exciting. It’s about 100 doors. They’re putting in a private water system and a private sewer system. Are we going to be here in 30 years explaining to those homeowners why they have a $70 million bill, at that time, because somebody didn’t check?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for the question. The short answer is: yes, we agree with you. We’ve had a history of these small water systems over the years, and that’s exactly what we want to avoid in the future.

For example, when approving new applications, sustainable access to water is definitely one of the primary considerations for these provincial authorizations. And using your example, private owners or private managers who are building out these brand-new developments and operating these private water systems and private sewage systems….

Our number one question for that: is there enough water to sustain that new development? The second question: is the business model sufficient to sustain the infrastructure and the cost of the infrastructure and also affordable, sustainable rates for users so we don’t end up in the situation where we are now, where we have to look at replacing the system, and it’s millions of dollars too expensive for anyone to afford?

I do want to point out, as well, that there are broader solutions that we have to look at too — conservation, overall. We don’t need to be doing a lot of the things that we’re doing. We can get rain barrels instead of using regional district water to water our plants outside.

Water metering has been proven to reduce water usage and rates by 25 to 50 percent in some municipalities. I know in the district of Gibsons, they’ve been doing a great job of reducing water usage. Those are types of things that we have to look at overall to reduce our water usage.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that. I could actually spend my whole, probably, 5½ hours talking about water. I’m going to hit just one more small thing. It’s actually a big thing, but the rest I’ll submit in writing after the fact.

I want to talk a little bit about dams and dam safety. I know we touched a little bit on it with the Dinsdale dike breach. How many high-risk dams do we currently have in B.C.?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for the question and switching over to dams. Regulated dams are characterized by their failure consequence classification. So instead of high risk, we use high consequence, because there may be high-risk dams in the middle of nowhere that, if they would burst, affected nothing. So we use consequence as opposed to high risk.

The higher the consequence classification, the higher the expected standard of care. Under the regulation, a dam failure consequence classification is given to all dams based on the potential for loss of life, the deterioration of environmental and cultural values and the losses to infrastructure and the economy should the dam fail.

[3:20 p.m.]

This province has adopted a five-tier classification system ranging from low to extreme. I’ll let you know, under each consequence classification, how many dams we have.

We have a total of 1,906 dams in the province. The number that are considered extreme under the consequence classification is 54. The number classified as very high: 115. High is 219. Significant consequence classification is 609, and low consequence classification is 883. There are 26 dams that are what we’re calling undetermined right now, which just means that at this point, they haven’t been classified.

Donegal Wilson: Do we know how many in the top three — extreme, high consequence, high, I think it is; I was writing fast — are in some form of non-compliance?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. It’s not going to be very satisfactory. I’m afraid we don’t actually have that number, but we will get it for you.

I do want to point out, though, that when you ask which dams are in non-compliance, non-compliance can mean a wide variety of things, even something as simple as they missed a reporting deadline or a regular contact deadline. So maybe when we get you those numbers, you can ask for more specificity about what exactly non-compliancy means so we can figure that out.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the offer for digging into that. In the interest of time, we will do that offline.

Go a little bit into flood strategy. Obviously, we had an atmospheric river in 2021 that has impacted the communities of Princeton, Merritt. Thankfully, in Keremeos, our water mitigation held.

It is my understanding that Princeton has received funding to study the issue, but they have not received their funding to fix and replace their water mitigation measures in Princeton. If we have a large freshet this year, that could have significant consequences for the residents of Princeton. I’m just wondering what’s happening and if there’s anything in the budget for Princeton to get their dikes rebuilt.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Specific money for rebuilding for Princeton or shoring up their flood response…. The funding mechanisms are through the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness as well as federal funding. That is something that WLRS does not fund.

But just in general numbers, since 2017 the province has approved approximately $515 million in total and $375 million provincially for over 556 flood risk reduction projects. But that’s throughout the province, not specific to Princeton.

Donegal Wilson: Just for the sake of staff…. I am going to move to wildlife. I don’t know if this is an appropriate time for a break.

The Chair: Members, we will take a five-minute break. If we could please return at 3:32.

The committee recessed from 3:27 p.m. to 3:33 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Donegal Wilson: Wildlife is a particular thing in this file that I hold very dear to myself, personally as well as in my career, so I anticipate that I’ll have a lot of detailed questions in this.

I’ll start with the Together for Wildlife strategy. It was launched to improve wildlife management, but it feels, years later, like basic funding, transparency and accountability seem a little elusive. It’s hard to see what’s happening on the ground today with this.

Can you please start by telling me what your total budget for wildlife is in this fiscal year and what it does comparative to last fiscal?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for the question.

Some monetary spending for you just for the Together for Wildlife funding spent to date. So far in the first four fiscal years that Together for Wildlife has been around, it has invested in more than 400 projects across the province. We are committed to spending up to $10 million a year on Together for Wildlife.

For example, in fiscal 2020-2021, we funded 129 projects and spent just over $9 million.

In 2021-22, we funded 108 projects for wildlife and spent just under $10 million.

In 2022-2023, we funded just over 100 projects and spent almost $7½ million.

In 2023-24, we worked on just under 100 projects and spent almost $7 million, and we’re still finalizing the funding for this fiscal year.

Overall, 437 projects, almost $33 million we spent specifically just for Together for Wildlife.

[3:40 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Could we have the overall expenditure in the wildlife division? I know I’d asked for a long period back that was hard to pull, but if we could have ’23, ’24 and ’25 for the ministry, that would be very helpful.

Hon. Randene Neill: We are, again, going to have to defer to written answers for you. Literally, there are so many different ministries, and our wildlife funding doesn’t come just under resource stewardship. For example, it can come under our land use planning, cumulative effects, etc. So we don’t have that number here, but we will put it together for you and make sure that you have that.

Donegal Wilson: Just to be clear, as a division called wildlife, we don’t have a budget? It’s aggregated among a bunch of other divisions or…? I thought each division had its own budget.

Hon. Randene Neill: We don’t have a specific division just for wildlife. Wildlife falls under resource stewardship. Funding for that for ’25-26 is $37.761 million.

To our earlier point, wildlife conservation and stewardship also happen across some of the other areas, like land use planning — we have some wildlife spending in there — water, fisheries and the coast. We have some spending in reconciliation, lands and natural resource policy.

If we want to pull what we do specifically for wildlife out of those other sectors, it’s going to take us a bit of time to do that.

Donegal Wilson: I’ll wait for the written response on that, because I think it would be valuable to know what we’re spending on wildlife in the province and be able to compare that to other jurisdictions.

I know that I had previously submitted specific categories of biologists and that’s coming in a written format later, but can you tell me, overall, how many biologists we have working in WLRS specifically and how many positions are currently vacant?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We don’t have that information for you yet. I’m sorry, Member, we are working to get that information. Because we thought estimates would be starting for us on May 8, we weren’t able to pull that together. But we will, and we will give it to you in writing.

Donegal Wilson: Would the minister be able to clarify whether we have adequate biologists on the ground to meet the commitments we’ve made?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for your question.

It’s a simple answer. The work of resource stewardship and managing our land and resources and helping to restore our wildlife and biodiversity that supports our wildlife requires a lot of people on the ground, boots on the ground. We would never, ever say no to having more of those types of resources.

Donegal Wilson: I was recently talking with some members of the local wildlife association. One of the things that had come up was that there’s only one biologist left in the office in Penticton and that two had been seconded to another region, and that biologist did not have a truck or a cell phone or the ability to travel to do his job.

I’m wondering. I understand that we want more, but do we have enough to even do the bare minimum of the job, in every corner of the province, that we’ve committed to?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We have implemented, and this is provincewide, management expenditure controls to prioritize funding for operational needs on the ground.

We are working together as a province and through multiministries to send professional biologists where they’re needed. We’re sending them with cell phones and vehicles as well, because obviously they need that.

When we say we’re prioritizing funding for operational needs, that means professional biologists on the ground. What we’re prioritizing right now, in particular, in terms of wildlife, are inventory, wildlife health and critical habitat restoration for wildlife.

Donegal Wilson: In this particular case, it was a controlled burn where the biologist needed to be present. My understanding is that the local wildlife club had to pick that biologist up and bring them to the actual fire, be with them for the day and return them to the office.

Is that the expectation that we’re going to have for our staff to be able to do their job in this province?

Hon. Randene Neill: We would say in the example that you gave us of the controlled burn, that would be the exception — that that biologist would have had to have been picked up and taken there and then dropped off again.

Our fleet vehicles are shared across all of the natural resource ministries. Quite often we share offices, too, with Forests and Mining and Critical Minerals, for example. We try to make sure that everyone has signed out and has the vehicle when they need it to do their job.

I do also want to acknowledge the local wildlife organization for helping us that day. This is something that…. We work closely with First Nations and non-governmental organizations to help us forward our work to protect our wildlife in many cases.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, I think I also want to recognize local wildlife groups in my region. They have stepped up and done more than should be expected of a non-profit organization.

I’ll switch over to chronic wasting disease. Grand Forks and Cranbrook and the areas along the bottom have been actively running a freezer program. The Wildlife Federation has bought the freezers and is monitoring the freezers. As of mid-last year, the biologists no longer had money to go collect the deer heads out of the freezer to test for chronic wasting disease, and the wildlife association had to go and collect all the heads and deliver them to Kelowna. There again is another instance where our staff don’t have the bare minimum tools to meet the crisis.

Do we have money in this year’s budget to ensure that our staff can meet the need for chronic wasting disease?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much, Member, for your question.

I know that you know how serious chronic wasting disease is and how seriously members in Cranbrook and Kimberley and those areas take it, as well as so many organizations like the B.C. Wildlife Federation and hunters. I have to say that the government would never be successful if not for the hunters and if not for the local wildlife federations and all of those folks who are sending in samples for us to be able to test.

I know this is not a good comparison at all, but we are really likening this to the pandemic where we have to flatten that curve. We know the studies done here in B.C. with our biologists, and down in the U.S., show that if we can keep a baseline of less than…. I don’t want to say the wrong thing, but below a certain baseline, we know that we can ward off chronic wasting disease for the long term in our province. That’s our goal. We want to make sure that this doesn’t take hold anywhere.

A bit of background on this — the first cases of chronic wasting disease, CWD, were in the Cranbrook area last fall and winter. A total of five cases have been confirmed so far through surveillance efforts. Again, massive thanks to hunters for helping us test all of their animals. We need surveillance, we need education, and we need preventative measures. This has been led by the B.C. wildlife health program for over 20 years.

We had a recent test of urban deer, which is potentially a huge issue in Kimberley and Cranbrook as well and tried our best to test 100 deer in both those cases, as well as the First Nations deer cull, where we tested five more. We’ve also got some surveillance thingies — that’s the technical term — to make sure that we can follow to see where urban deer go so we can test them from that area as well.

We’re building our budget right now for this year for CWD. We’re also doing our very, very best to make sure that we have a local sampling site at the location. All the actual testing of the samples has to be done in Abbotsford because that’s an approved CFIA testing site. We need to be able to set up a testing site. That’s something that hunters have been asking for, and that preceded me as well.

[4:00 p.m.]

Last year we had funding of $716,000 from WLRS, plus an additional $214,000 from various external partners. We know that’s not enough, which is why we’re building our budget for that this year. We will do whatever we need to do to ensure that we can keep that curve flattened and that chronic wasting disease does not become prevalent in this province.

Donegal Wilson: I’ll use the word “testing,” because I like that that was the word used. We were doing some urban deer testing, and during that urban deer testing in Kimberley, we were not successful in accumulating the number of tests we needed to actually have some scientific findings about what’s happening in the herd.

Is there a plan to do some more testing in Kimberley? What does that look like as far as communication and protection for the people doing the testing?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for your question. Yes, we were, I guess, stymied a little bit in testing in Kimberley, because there were a couple of concerned citizens who were opposed to our testing.

What I will say is that right now is fawning season, and typically we would not go out and do limited-entry hunting during fawning season. However, we do year-round testing for roadkill. There is a surprising number of roadkill in that area, so we’re able to do quite a bit of testing of the deer year-round. If we see a preponderance of positives of chronic wasting disease, then we would not hesitate to do whatever we need to do to be able to get an accurate test in there.

That’s, again, where we really work closely with hunters and our First Nations in the area as well, the Ktunaxa, who are extremely concerned about increasing numbers of chronic wasting. Yeah, this is a priority for us, and we’re going to make sure that we stay on top of it.

[4:05 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I will say that I believe it is critical. It’s not only the deer populations. We’re talking about other populations, including elk, moose and others that will be impacted by this if it is allowed to spread.

I just want to tie one more ribbon on, because the ministry is going into budgets. I was just last week at the B.C. Wildlife Federation convention, and the biologist in charge with the chronic wasting disease was there to educate hunters around the necessity, if they’re hunting in the region, of how they should harvest, how they should clean the animals, how they should be keeping the heads, and all of these things that are not as prevalent a practice in other regions as it is there.

This was a prime opportunity to educate a large group of hunters. In this particular case, our biologist did not have the travel funding to attend the conference, and the Wildlife Federation had to pay for our CWD biologist to get to a convention to educate hunters.

Is there an intent to ensure that that biologist has the funding they need this year to effectively meet the need?

Hon. Randene Neill: Full disclosure: we literally had a meeting this morning with the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and they told us that they flew up our biologist to do that. We will be reimbursing the B.C. Wildlife Federation for that generous offer.

In the future…. There was a bit of a miscommunication. We thought we could do it online, but of course, it’s far more effective to do it in person. That was part of the cost-saving assumption from some folks, but we will make it clear in the future that for those types of events, absolutely, we’ll be attending in person.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister and the staff for allowing me an opportunity to ask a couple of questions here.

In certain communities in the East Kootenays, Kimberley and Cranbrook specifically, we do have an urban deer problem. As my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen has indicated, not only does this potentially present a very serious chronic wasting disease issue with these animals in close proximity to each other within an urban environment — and the potential for that disease to spread into the local elk herd populations, which would be absolutely devastating — but it also presents a very serious safety risk to the public.

This time of the year, as the minister knows, is fawning season, and mother deer become very protective. I know that personally, I’ve had to drive in front of deer chasing down old ladies walking their dogs, and things like that, in trying to defend their fawn. It’s a very serious safety concern.

I stood in front of the Kimberley council not long ago hoping to create an active urban deer management strategy. I’m just curious if the ministry has a plan or funds available in this budget to develop, with local government, active urban deer management strategies in order to keep these numbers at a reasonable level. Right now we have several hundred deer in a community like Kimberley, and it is presenting quite a safety risk.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much, Member, for your question.

I’m thinking we’ll give you a chance to go on record to maybe rephrase the term “old ladies.” But that’s totally up to you.

In areas where there is chronic wasting disease, we do work really, really closely with local governments to come up with strategies that work together because, as you say, in the spring fawning season, the does can be quite aggressive and protective.

Urban deer populations are in so many different communities across B.C. I know we have one. I know Mayne Island…. We’re expecting questions from one of the Green members later about Mayne Island.

The provincial urban deer advisory committee has representatives from local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the province and the BC SPCA. We review funding applications every year. Previously we’ve offered about $100,000 a year to partner in locally led urban deer management projects. We’ll be honest. A lot of those projects are strategies for coexistence where there is no incidence of chronic wasting disease or any other types of invasive diseases as well.

But in terms of where there is chronic wasting in the urban deer populations, it’s a completely different ballgame. We do take that very seriously and work together to not only test — I know we’re not supposed to use the word “cull” — but cull in some instances and make sure that we work together to keep that disease from spreading.

Scott McInnis: Just for the record, I would like to withdraw my comment about old ladies and refer to wonderful women in their golden years walking their dogs.

Thank you.

Donegal Wilson: I also have many communities with urban deer populations, and while they may not have chronic wasting disease today, science has established that those urban populations in high numbers living close to communities are likely to develop some sort of health issue. I think that a strategy similar to what my colleague has mentioned needs to be considered for these urban populations.

I know that, door-knocking in Grand Forks in October, I was challenged by a deer. And door-knocking was very challenging with six-foot deer fences around town lots. So I encourage an overview of urban deer altogether. I’ll let my colleague from the Green Party go further on that, I’m sure.

I’m going to switch over to whirling disease. Last year we had a confirmed case of whirling disease in Kootenay Lake. I’m just wondering, for this fiscal year, whether we have a plan or a strategy on how we are going to manage the whirling disease in Kootenay Lake this year.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question about whirling disease.

As part of our own surveillance programs, we monitor what happens around us — so in Alberta and western and northern U.S. states. We knew that whirling disease was being detected in areas around our province. I think that we did our best to be prepared to find it in our province, and we did, as you mentioned.

A 2024 sampling resulted in three positive detections of the parasite responsible for whirling disease in the three southern tributaries of Kootenay Lake: in Boulder Creek, Goat River and Duck Creek as well.

The first thing we’re doing is…. To minimize spread of the whirling disease, we’ve recently introduced legislation, the “Clean, drain, dry,” so all boats must pull the plug, make sure there’s no standing water with organisms that could have whirling disease in it. Government employees and our contractors must decontaminate their gear when leaving water bodies in the Columbia watershed, and the public has to do the same. In May of 2024, as I just mentioned, everyone is required to pull the plug in all watercraft travelling overland in B.C.

[4:20 p.m.]

Just one other thing to note, which is what we’re looking at right now, the detection of the parasite responsible for whirling disease last fall. We don’t know if these are actually new detections or if this was a parasite of a pre-existing condition that we were aware of earlier. That’s something that we’re also looking into.

Donegal Wilson: I did hear a response around the whirling disease itself and the “Clean, drain, dry.” I’m aware, obviously, that there’s legislation coming, which brings up: do we have the actual boots on the ground to implement those changes if it so passes?

Hon. Randene Neill: The short answer is: yes, we do have the boots on the ground that we need right now, as part of the legislation for the invasive mussel defence program. It’s operating right now today, and we do have conservation officers and conservation officers’ dogs who are doing the testing for those invasive species.

Basically what this legislation gives us to do is it compels people to stop and test and look at their boats to make sure that there are no invasive mussels or organisms or standing water that could carry the parasite for whirling disease, for example. I’ll leave it there for now.

Donegal Wilson: Is it the intent of the program that people will self-check their stuff, or is there actually going to be somebody at the station checking them?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

The short answer is: it is both. We are both asking people…. We’ve done a really big public education and communications campaign, so people know that they need to clean, drain and dry.

Something as small as a stand-up paddleboard…. I know, where I live, on the Sunshine Coast, we have lots of little lakes and stuff, and people go to multiple lakes in a day. What we’re asking folks to do is just understand that they need to clean, drain and dry their paddleboard or kayak or whatever it is before they go from lake to lake, just to make sure that they don’t spread any diseases unknowingly.

Also, with this pull-the-plug legislation…. We’re doing this right now before the summer season starts, when folks come up with their boats, so that we make sure we now have the authority at border crossings, for example, that people have to stop and get their water vehicles inspected, whether it’s Sea-Doos or boats, anything that has a plug in, or even portable docks; so that we can test them.

One last thing, as well, when the new federal cabinet is announced, one of my first calls will be to the federal minister asking for their support with the CBSA and border officers to help us make those enforcements as well.

Donegal Wilson: It sort of was answered in the last sentence there, but my question was: who is inspecting if we’re doing this at the borders? We have, obviously, the Alberta border, we have the U.S. border. If there is an inspection, is there going to be a cost associated with those inspections, and will they receive a certificate that they’ve been inspected?

Hon. Randene Neill: Currently right now at any crossing, it’s the B.C. conservation office. We hold the financial responsibility, but the B.C. conservation office and their scent-sniffing dogs will actually do the work.

At U.S. border crossings, we do also partner with the Canadian Border Services Agency to be able to look at checking those boats or watercraft that come through the border. But again, that’s something that we need to do in a better, more effective way. That’s something that we’re working on right now.

Something else that we’re also looking at is…. Right now, we have what we’re calling a risk management approach. We don’t get a certificate or anything. But in different areas, like Alberta, they actually get a sticker, and we’re looking at implementing that policy as well. If the results are stronger and better, we’re certainly open to that.

[4:30 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I know the CO service budget doesn’t live within this ministry. But I assume that in their envelope, then, there’s going to be an increased enforcement connected with your budget for monitoring those.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, CO officers are under the Ministry of Environment. But we have a budget to, I guess…. I didn’t ask if I can say the word “second,” but borrow conservation officers to come over and help us. This does not alter, in any way, Environment’s ability to do their job with their conservation officers.

We get our invasive mussels defence program. That’s the budget we use to get the conservation officers to help us with the “Clean, drain, dry” program. We also have program partners as well. I won’t read them all out, but for example, in this fiscal year, B.C. Hydro is helping us by giving us $900,000. Our total program budget this year is $3.6 million.

Donegal Wilson: For clarity, that $3.6 million is the budget for the “Clean, drain, dry” or for the invasive species overall?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: That amount that I talked to you about is just simply for the invasive mussels defence program. Under that budget, we also do the “Clean, drain, dry” program. We also do the monitoring and the inspections. That includes the inspections for whirling disease, for example.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that clarification. That was what I was expecting.

We had talked about chronic wasting disease, we’ve talked about whirling disease, and we kind of got into invasive mussels in a roundabout way.

The minister had mentioned that they were working on the budgets. My question is: is the envelope itself established and we’re moving money around within that envelope to the different programs, or have the envelopes themselves not been established yet?

Hon. Randene Neill: I hope we’re answering your question correctly. We do have our total for our estimates budget, and we read out kind of the sub-amounts as well. But we are still doing some of the detailed work on how to prioritize that budget based on kinds of the subsets that they fit into.

Some of our absolute main priorities, because we were just talking about it, are whirling disease, invasive mussels, chronic wasting disease. Those are key priorities for us in this budget.

Donegal Wilson: I know that each of these things has a response plan, and those response plans get triggered by different things. If the response plan is triggered, as it was in Kootenay Lake last year, do we have the budget to actually respond appropriately for what’s in our response plan for each of these things?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: As it stands now, yes, our response plans are in place. And thank you for the question. But at any time, as you know, anything can change. We need to constantly reassess and constantly pivot and constantly be ready to reprioritize, based on something that could happen that we don’t know is going to happen at this point.

I do want to stress, as well, that our priority, really, is prevention, because, for example, once whirling disease gets into Kootenay Lake, our options are limited. We really, really have to focus on prevention, making sure that we keep it out of as many lakes as possible and we keep our lakes safe and work on education and communication so people understand the significance of that and work hard with us to make that happen.

Donegal Wilson: As much of my riding has lakes in it, I can tell you that the “Clean, drain, dry” program is very important to the people of the Boundary-Similkameen and to residents across B.C. We value our water systems greatly.

The question around…. Last summer the “Clean, drain, dry” programs in my region — I’ll speak only because I visually saw them — appeared to be available on weekends, and there did not appear to be enforcement if people did not pull over. So I’m wondering: is there a plan to increase the presence of the “Clean, drain, dry” stations, specifically in high tourist areas, where they may not be knowledgeable about the problem?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: What we are really taking with this is a risk-management approach, so we go after high-traffic, high-volume areas. We’ll be honest. This is frustrating for us, because this is a federal issue, and we have zero federal funding. That’s why I suggested earlier that once a federal cabinet is named, this is going to be one of our first calls — to ask for funding to support something that could potentially affect the entire country. Provinces having to deal with this on their own is not going to work, and it’s not helping.

In terms of enforcement, prior to this legislation being introduced, what we had was a Chief Vet order that required vehicles to pull over, for example. If they didn’t pull over when we went to court, there were challenges in getting that enforcement to stick. So that’s why we’ve introduced this legislation. It gives us more teeth.

Also, going forward, we’ve asked staff to look into increasing the penalties, similar to what other provinces do. Penalties are much higher in Alberta. We couldn’t include it in this legislation, but we will be looking to increase those penalties in the future.

Donegal Wilson: I’m wondering if there has been any exploration with Municipal Affairs. We discussed that earlier in a previous conversation around the private water systems. In my riding, the community of Osoyoos is currently looking at over $70 million to fix their large water system, their municipal water. Their plan is to pull from the lake.

A lot of those private water systems that we talked about earlier are also pulling from Skaha, Vaseux, Gallagher and south. I’m only speaking in my riding, but if those invasive mussels enter the water, it’s going to have wide-scale impacts on infrastructure. I’m wondering if that has been looked at or discussed within your cabinet.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: If I may, to the member, just offer a clarification pointed out to me by the ADM. When I mentioned the Chief Vet order that we had to compel vehicles to stop, it was specifically for pull the plug, and this legislation will be a broader spectrum.

In terms of your question about Osoyoos and a potential new development drawing water from the lake, we haven’t specifically had any deep discussions with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. We are really looking for the federal government to partner with us on this. There are so many competing demands on local governments’ time, and working with another provincial ministry and going from this level down puts a lot of burden on local governments. So we would really like to partner with the federal government on this.

To your point, that is why we partner with different organizations like B.C. Hydro and Columbia Basin Trust. For example, if invasive mussels do enter some of our waterways, we estimate anywhere up to $129 million a year in infrastructure repairs and damage to our economy, whether it be damage to farmers or hydro intakes and all those sorts of things. It’s an incredibly serious issue.

Donegal Wilson: It brings to mind, for me, if the ministry is providing any advice to these municipalities, based on learnings from other jurisdictions, around whether they should be making an investment that large in pulling lake water or whether they should be looking for other areas before they spend and get too far down that road. I’ll ask the minister: is that something that’s happening today?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

With our work with local government around things like invasive species, particularly invasive mussels, the short answer is yes. We talk to local government all the time about a host of things. We have collaborative working tables, not just for invasive species but in general for climate change. We’re looking, again, to what we talked about a bit earlier. It’s, really, resiliency.

With specific work regarding the invasive mussels, we partner with them with the “Clean, drain, dry” program. They’re huge partners with us in getting the word out in terms of education and communication. Then what we’ll also do is work with them about things that they can do to mitigate the impact of not just invasive species but other things as well.

[4:55 p.m.]

It is important to point out that at this point, B.C. does not have any invasive mussels that we have detected. I think so far we’re doing a good job. We need to do better, and we need to remain extremely vigilant to ensure that doesn’t happen.

So yes, but invasives are one of a host of things that we work with and partner with local governments on.

Donegal Wilson: Just seeking clarification on the statement that we don’t have invasive mussels. Does that mean we don’t have them in the lake or that none of our stations have actually detected mussels?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for asking about the clarification. It’s an important question.

Because the invasive mussel defence program focuses only on zebra and quagga mussels, that’s what we’re looking for. As of now, we have had no detection of those two mussels in any of our fresh waters in B.C.

We have detected them at border crossings. The ADM suggested that we are calling them mussel-fouled boats that we have found at these border crossings. We have ordered decontamination in those instances. But no detection at all for zebra or quagga mussels in our fresh waters, which suggests to us, and that means we can’t take our foot off the pedal, that our program is working.

Donegal Wilson: Randomly at a conference — I want to say about a year ago, before I was in this role — the Okanagan water board had…. I was talking to them about the “Clean, drain, dry” at a trade show. I thought that at that particular time, they said they had found mussels, specifically at a station in the Okanagan. Can we confirm that that is true or whether I was mistaken?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Hopefully this offers the clarification that you’re looking for, Member.

Since 2016, through our inspections, we have found 172 boats that have had mussels on them, or mussel-fouled boats, but we have not found any zebra or quagga mussels in any fresh waters in B.C.

Donegal Wilson: Again, a layman, not in science. For the 172 boats that are mussel-fouled, were any of those zebra or quagga mussels? Did I get the second one right?

Hon. Randene Neill: Short answer is yes on those mussel-fouled boats. See, I made you say it. We have found indication of zebra and quagga mussel on those boats.

Donegal Wilson: I’m going to switch over to species at risk. I have a lot more questions, as well, in that particular space, but I’m cognizant of the time.

Species at risk. I’m wondering if we could have a total of how many red-listed and blue-listed species we have in B.C.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I’m sorry that took so long for such an easy answer. The number of red-listed species in B.C. is 658, and blue-listed is 1,292.

Donegal Wilson: Looking at a five-year curve, is that number up, down or level?

Hon. Randene Neill: We are going to have to follow up with you to get the trends, whether it’s up or down or even, but we can say as a general statement that we are seeing more biodiversity declines in B.C. That’s why it’s so important to stay committed to the 30 by 30 campaign, protecting 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030, and other issues that we’re also working on now, including the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework.

Donegal Wilson: Are you able to share what the ministry has budgeted for caribou recovery in ’25-26?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question, Member.

We are still working on building our working budget for 2025-2026, but our budget last year was $8.755 million, and that has stayed fairly consistent. That’s the ballpark number that we’re working on this year as well.

Donegal Wilson: Are you able to share what the total budget for species at risk was for last year if we’re still working on this year, just so I can see comparatively what we’re spending on caribou versus all species at risk?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: For our funding for all species at risk, excluding caribou, last year was just over $4 million. We’re aiming for that ballpark number again this year — $4.07 million to be exact.

Donegal Wilson: Going back to the numbers that we talked about earlier, we have 1,950 red- or blue-listed species in B.C. We’re spending $8 million per year on one species and $4 million on the other 1,949. Is that correct?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

The answers that we gave you about the $4.07 million for the rest of the species at risk, those are actually just single spending. The $4 million includes things like spotted owls and those very specific programs on single species. It’s true; yes, we do spend way more on caribou recovery than we do on the other single species like spotted owl and those types.

We also do have spending in other areas. Rather than manage species by species, what we’re trying to move to and what other organizations and ENGOs have told us is that we need to really take an environment-based approach on healing.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:03 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

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

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Gavin Dew: I rise to reserve my right to make a point of privilege with regard to matters prior to our lunch.

The Chair: Noted.

Debate Continued

On clause 9 (continued).

Steve Kooner: Prior to the break, we were talking about clause 9, its applicability to ministries, and what guidelines are provided or were provided to ministries to address procurements and how they will go about giving procurement directives.

On that same line of questioning, I’m aware we’ve talked at length about how Bill 7 is an enabling statute, and it allows other ministries to operate within the parameters of the enabling statute. I’m aware of that.

[1:05 p.m.]

My follow-up question. Is there enough discretion to the ministries to carry forward their directives in a flexible manner, or will these ministries be carrying forward these directives in more of a uniform manner? Is there a degree of flexibility, or is there a degree of uniformity, when these ministries will be carrying out these procurement directives? That’s the question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Anything made, any regulation made, first of all, applies to the GPEs, as I think we’ve canvassed quite a bit. Ministers have the ability to be flexible in how they issue directives or consistent, depending on…. The enabling statute gives that ability to do that.

Then, if we remember back from the previous clauses, the way it would be done is through an OIC, so cabinet would also have the ability to weigh in before a procurement directive is issued. That would be the place to be able to understand how consistent or different or how flexible you want to be.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for the response, and once again, I thank the Attorney General’s staff for the assistance in providing information today.

Just a follow-up to that. There’s a bit of a discussion here that there might be a standard that is put forward by the OIC. What would that look like? Are there certain guidelines that the OIC has in instructing different ministers? How does that all look?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We canvassed quite a bit, in clause 7, the procurement directives and the powers that are given to make those procurement directives. It’s not the ministers that will be acting on it. Obviously, it’s the government procurement entity. The minister, through the OIC and cabinet, would issue it at them.

Maybe it’s from a previous question, for which the member could refer to the answers that we gave, and which set out how you issue the procurement directive, the powers under it and how it’s guided.

Steve Kooner: Just as a clarification, I understand how the directives will work, but this goes to the point of the OIC. The Attorney General brought that up. We were informed that the OIC would have some sort of contribution to the minister’s decision in terms of how uniform or flexible the application of those directives would be.

Going back to that point that was brought up about OIC, what exactly would the OIC do in in regard to that particular minister? Would they listen to the minister and just rubber-stamp it, whatever the minister says? Would it be more of a discussion, or would it be like: “Okay, have you followed these three points?” How would it work?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just would ask for the Chair’s guidance here. We’re on clause 9, and there’s nothing in clause 9 that speaks about the powers or the discussion of the OIC. We, in fact, discussed that under clause 7, quite extensively. I believe if the member refers to the Hansard debate in that time, we talked a lot about how decisions would be made and what that would look like.

The Chair: I’d just like to remind the member to keep debate relevant to the clause.

Steve Kooner: Well, with all due respect, I’m not the one that brought up the OIC. It was brought with a response from the Attorney General. So when I ask a question to what was answered, I think it’s highly relevant.

[1:10 p.m.]

I’d say the viewers at home are probably thinking that’s relevant, because I didn’t bring up the OIC in a response. I heard the word “OIC.” It was provided in an explanation to clause 9. I think it’s fair to ask a question about OIC in regard to clause 9, because it was provided, in a response by the Attorney General to me, that that’s how that would work.

The Chair: Do you have a specific question?

Steve Kooner: Yes, I can rephrase. I can remind the Chair of what I said earlier.

The question was: how would it work? We’re talking about clause 9, and the word “OIC” was brought forward. OIC would play a role, in terms of clause 9, when the minister would discuss the directive in regard to clause 9.

What sort of…? Would it be rubber-stamping what the minister is to do, in terms of a check and balance, or would there be a fair bit of discussion on that? Would it be that…. Okay, there’d be a little bit of a process. What does that look like?

We’re going back to clause 9. Why we’re going back to clause 9 is because I asked a question earlier, and the answer was supplied. There was a discussion on OIC, and then, I have a question to that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not a gotcha moment on my side. I’m not trying to avoid answering. I just am noting that I did answer this question in quite some detail under clause 7, when we talked about the powers of the OIC, what the guides of that power are, and how it would be used.

The member is asking about, in essence, what a cabinet process is. The cabinet process is that a minister would bring forward their recommendations for OIC to cabinet. There would, obviously, be a cabinet discussion, and then the cabinet would decide if they approve or don’t approve. All those are, of course, covered by cabinet confidentiality.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for answering the question. That’s all I was looking for, an answer.

In my next question, we’re talking about ministries and talking about ministers. In the earlier part of the debate on the previous part of the bill, we talked about how different ministries had some say on this bill. Now we’re talking about how particular ministries or ministers would get involved in their directives.

We also discussed the regulatory framework for clause 9, on what sorts of guidelines there are in terms of education to government procurement entities. We also have now spoken about what sort of guidelines would be there for ministers and ministries. That all relates to this next question.

I know the Attorney General was not able to provide us any sort of information on what reserves may be available if there are indemnification claims under clause 9. Right now there are no reserves set. From the response that we heard, there haven’t really been some stringent regulatory guidelines put forward. That’s my understanding.

A way to understand that better is by asking the next question, which has not been asked yet. Can the Attorney General advise which ministry official or working group initiated the drafting of clause 9, and whether the policy direction came from the Attorney General’s office or the Ministry of Finance or any other government department?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Everything about this bill stems from the tariff threat the President has imposed upon Canada. What that has led to is a very strong response by our government to figure out what we can implement for the tools.

This particular one of procurement helps us, in a really powerful way, to direct our procurement towards supporting B.C. companies and the B.C. economy. It’s a really powerful tool to do that, so this is a direction of government.

As usually happens when government sets a directive through the cabinet, in response to the tariffs, there is a dedicated team of public servants that works across ministries to develop this. Certainly, my team — some who are before you here today, in the legal services branch and the JSB, as well, the justice services branch — and also the Ministry of Finance, just like every time you develop a policy or piece of legislation, work collaboratively together to put it together.

Steve Kooner: That’s helpful information. Thank you.

That leads to my next question. The expedited nature of this legislation and the complexity of the indemnification clause make the timing of its development highly relevant. When was the indemnification provision in clause 9 first proposed? That’s the next question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not information, even from the team that’s before you that started the work, that we could tell you — a specific time or date where this particular provision was thought of or developed.

What is before you is a bill, a comprehensive bill in nature, that is pulled together by many people’s work and, particularly, the lead that you see before you today in the House. So it’s not a thing that we can provide which specific day that a particular clause was developed or thought of.

Steve Kooner: All right. Clause 9 is designed to protect government procurement entities from legal costs or being overburdened by legal costs as a result of legal actions. In relation to that, is my next question.

What was the basis of including this? Did the government procurement entities or the potential government procurement entities specifically request for this applicable clause 9 to be in Bill 7 in order for them to actually carry out their duties? Did they specifically request this or not?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There was no specific request from the government procurement entities. This was an acknowledgement on behalf of government that in this team approach, where we’re all aligning ourselves and working together, these kinds of provisions would help give the government procurement entities a surety that if they are acting on a directive that we have issued, we’re all in it together.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to put on the record this amendment that I think everybody has before them for clause 10.

[CLAUSE 10, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

General powers respecting directives

10 (1) In issuing a directive under this Part, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following:

(a) delegate a matter in person;

(a) delegate a matter to

(i) a minister,

(ii) a person who is employed in the government, or

(iii) a person who is a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity;

(b) confer a discretion on a person;

(b) confer a discretion on

(i) a minister,

(ii) a person who is employed in the government, or

(iii) a person who is a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity:

(c) establish terms and conditions;

(d) provide for exemptions;

(e) establish or define classes of government procurement entities, procurements, goods, services, circumstances, matters or other things;

(f) make different directives in relation to different ministries, government procurement entities, procurements, goods, services, circumstances, matters or other things, or different classes of government procurement entities, procurements, goods, services, circumstances, matters or other things.

(2) A directive issued on or before June 30, 2025 under this Part may be made retroactive to February 1, 2025 or a later date and, if made retroactive, is deemed to have been issued on the specified date.]

On the amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is another amendment that came through discussions that we had with stakeholders to make sure that it brings clarity to delegation in this matter — and discretion. Hopefully everybody will support it.

Amendment approved.

On clause 10 as amended.

[1:20 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: We have clause 10 as amended before us right now. I’m pleased to rejoin the debate this afternoon. I think, with the amendments, the public will want a bit more clarification on what they mean.

Maybe I’ll start off by giving the Attorney General an opportunity to explain the clause as amended, generally, to start off our discussion right now.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The essence of these powers in here is to allow for operational flexibility. It sets out the power for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so cabinet, to delegate a matter either to a minister or employment…. There’s a list there, as amended.

Then it also talks about what the discretion and the ability to delegate are, including: establish terms and conditions; provide for exemptions. In practice, what that would look like is…. For example, in the rapidly moving ability for government procurement entities to essentially implement a procurement directive, it would allow, let’s say, the cabinet to delegate a power to somebody in their ministry, or another person.

[1:25 p.m.]

For example, subsection (d) talks about exemptions. If we’re asking for entities to abide by certain procurement directives, but there’s a viability question — is it viable for this entity to do that? — and there needs to be an assessment about whether this is a viable thing that this entity can do, then in order to respond to the rapidly unfolding nature of the tariff crisis and the trade war, there’s an ability on the ground for somebody to have that power and ability, through that delegation, to do that kind of operational component of the directives.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the overall intent of the clause. I think that is an important clause overall, consequential to part 2 overall, in discussing these general powers.

Maybe to clarify, speaking just to the amended language itself, is this language changed as a result of requests from the Green Party, or is it government that decided to amend the language?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We had input, in this very rapidly forming response and bill, from many people. I believe, from memory, that this was a suggestion from the Green Party. The idea of that would be, instead of delegating a matter to a person, to bring more clarity as to what person is intended. So there’s a clarity in the legislation to make it clear about that delegatory power — who it can go to.

Kiel Giddens: Just as we’re getting into those directives to a matter of a person, can the Attorney General confirm: can any of those be administrative, economic or political in nature, then?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If we could get some clarity on the question as to what the member is talking about, that could be the categories he described.

Kiel Giddens: To use an administrative example, these could be directives for ministries on how they operate, a directive that would change the administration under the Public Service Act or something like that.

Economic — these would probably be the examples we’ve talked a little bit more intently on, B.C.- or Canada-first policies, or something like that.

Political would be more overtly, I would say, an example that could be more partisan in nature. Could that be actually possible under these provisions? Is that part of it?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, so this clause has to be put in context of the greater bill. There are a few things.

One of them would be the first section, issuing a directive under this part. That leads you back to clause 7, which talks about what the powers are to make that a directive. It’s limited and defined in all the ways we talked about in clause 7 and, under that, this is a delegation authority. It allows, in that directive, for cabinet to delegate the authority of the operational aspect of whatever that directive is to the categories listed.

Kiel Giddens: I want to get, maybe, into a little bit about who those delegations can be made to in the amended language that I’m reading here. Just to clarify, could the minister provide what changes in that delegation and who those individuals actually would include?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Essentially, the clause as amended changes the delegation. As I mentioned earlier, it changes it from a person and narrows it to make sure that there’s certainty as to who it could be delegated to. It would be a minister, a person who is employed in the government, a person who is a member, a director or an officer of a government procurement entity.

[1:30 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Presumably, that would include all public servants and anybody working for Crown corporations. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It could possibly include employees of Crown agencies who would be captured under subsection 3. The thought process behind that, obviously…. Just like any time you have these kinds of delegation powers which are included in many pieces of legislation, what you would do in practice is delegate that authority to the expert or the person with that role most appropriate to do the job.

Kiel Giddens: This just brought me to an interesting thought into how this could be applied. I’m wondering if it could be applied to the Legislative Assembly. The reason I’m asking is that MLAs, just a few weeks ago, got purchasing and procurement guidelines. This is meant for the entire Legislative Assembly and also guidelines for MLAs. I’m asking the question on behalf, hopefully, of the Office of the Clerk, as well as to get clarity.

The guidelines that we received did say that: “The Legislative Assembly is seeking to diversify its purchasing and procurement activities, which will include increased consideration of Canada-first purchasing and procurement where appropriate. Legislative Assembly administration staff must consider the….” Then it goes on to the options for procurement.

I’m wondering what this would mean for the Legislative Assembly — if they would, in fact, be potentially covered under this or could be subject to procurement directives.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This doesn’t apply to the Legislative Assembly. You couldn’t issue a procurement directive towards the Legislative Assembly. The reason is in the definitions here. When you say a person who’s employed by government, that doesn’t include the Legislative Assembly.

Then, of course, subsection 3 is talking about procurement entities, which also doesn’t include the Legislative Assembly.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for clarifying that, on behalf of MLAs and LAMC and the Clerk’s office. I think that’s helpful for them to note.

Could it potentially be applied to private businesses or any foreign-owned entities operating in B.C.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the clarification.

In looking at subclause 10(1)(b), I’m wondering: will the discretion here conferred be subject to any written guidelines or transparency requirements?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The transparency about this provision would be clear because it would be in the procurement directive itself, what the delegation power is. It would say right in there that for this particular role, it’s delegated to that person or individual. That’s how it would show up for the public.

[1:35 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Can the minister maybe provide some…? Again, I’m moving along in the clause here but looking at where we talk about the types of exemptions that could be granted. Can the minister maybe provide some examples of the types of exemptions that could be granted under section 1(d)?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll start by saying that we would expect that the work of thinking about how to draft and put together a procurement directive would include an analysis for either that particular sector or area and how to apply a procurement directive towards that area. That analysis would happen.

Then once you’ve done that, and you’ve listed out what you’ve said, like “exclude U.S.” or whatever, there’s going to be a viability component to it. What is viable for that entity to do, and what’s reasonable, based on their procurement or what their needs are for suppliers or whatever that service that they’re delivering is?

Then you could delegate to somebody very particularly, in your procurement directive, to say who the task of determining what an exemption is, for viability for this entity is given to, and it would likely be an expert and somebody that you would give that discretion to, to determine that on an ongoing basis.

Kiel Giddens: That viability or test of reasonableness…. That could be any person that cabinet delegates that to? Am I understanding that correctly?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, cabinet would do it. Again, it would be very clear in the directive. The procurement directive…. If there’s a delegation of decision-making on any of the things listed here, it needs to be noted in the directive who that decision-maker is.

In effect, what might happen is that you would have the government procurement entity saying — we were just talking of an example: “We don’t think this is a U.S. supplier, so we think we’re abiding by this directive by doing that.” Then maybe they could go to the decisions that have to happen on that rapid basis.

The delegated responsibility of authority gives the ability for somebody to be in contact and communication with that procurement entity to determine those kinds of things or to help work with them to determine it. That’s how it might show up in practice.

Kiel Giddens: I’m wondering what criteria might be used to determine how different ministries or procurement classes would be looked at or treated under different types of procurement directives.

Hon. Niki Sharma: At this stage, again, it goes back to this being an enabling piece of legislation. We would expect the ministers and cabinet to seize themselves of questions about what could be included as a class of procurement entities or goods and services.

I think there’s a lot of complexity that would go into that analysis. That would be based on the very different sectors. A health authority and the operation of health services is very different than ICBC. What their needs are, and their ability to put that directive in place, are going to be different. There may be some specific reasons that you have to have a supplier from a very specific source that are related to security or standards of service.

This enabling piece of legislation gives the ability to have those nuances figured out. We’re seizing the opportunity to support B.C. businesses, support the local economy and also make sure that the services and all the necessary things that we need, sometimes through procurement, are being met.

[1:40 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Moving further along, I’m trying to understand, as well, why retroactivity to February 1, 2025, might actually be necessary.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This clause is very important to understand the Team Canada, Team B.C. approach that’s being taken with this bill, so we can all stand and put the measures in place to be able to stand in solidarity.

We know that since February 1, different entities have been doing purchasing directives or issuing things to respond to the tariff threat and to show their solidarity. Those may have included some clauses that would be similar or dissimilar from what a procurement directive is. What we wanted to do is to provide the grace and certainty to all those government procurement entities that may have already had purchasing directives that were in place and showed solidarity through what’s happened since February 1 and the first executive order — that we would have this ability to have retroactive protection for them.

The goal of this bill, which is the power of it, is to, going forward, have very clear legislated procurement directives that are able to have clear consistency, and the support and heft of this piece of legislation and the powers of government, so we can continue the act of solidarity that we’re all participating in through supporting Buy B.C. and exclude America sentiments.

Kiel Giddens: I think this is an important matter to discuss. I think I’m less concerned with the government procurement entities’ exposure on this and more to the businesses that may already be in contracts. They may have already spent capital. They may have already been part of it because they have taken part in these procurement opportunities.

Could retroactive directives affect procurement processes already underway or contracts already signed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The key part of this provision is the “may be.” It provides the ability to make something retroactive since February 1, which was the first executive order.

Of course, in order to do so, you’d have to do the appropriate legal analysis and understanding of what that initiative taken by that government procurement entity was. I’m sure the analysis would include: was it in the spirit of something like a procurement directive, and would you want to attach retroactivity to that activity?

Kiel Giddens: I think this is still an area that would be unclear for businesses overall, and this is where…. A word that the opposition has used previously, in the context of part 2, has been the word “arbitrary.” It’s something that, I worry, is going to create some confusion. There could be economic uncertainty that could occur, and business confidence is tested as a result of that.

It also opens up government to exposure on the legal side. We already talked about indemnification in detail.

[1:45 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the government, in that context, has taken any actions between February 1 and today that may require retroactive legal cover.

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I mentioned, ever since February 1 there has been a lot of both private and public entities that have stepped forward into changing their purchasing ability or rules to target what we’re all in support of, which is a Team B.C., Team Canada approach and the ability to direct our spending to support our economy, which is a powerful thing.

In the sense of the question of if we have any concerns that there’s anything that we need to give legal protection for that’s happened since February 1, the answer to that would be that that’s not the purpose of these bills. It’s not because we want to do that or are worried about that. The purpose is, going forward, in the sense of the on-off nature of the tariff threat, to figure out what the legal tools would be for all of us to work together, in a clear, consistent way, with the right legal protections.

The power of this part is to give the legal tools to do that. Because of that, you could see all government procurement entities…. We’ve talked about the millions of dollars — I think the estimate is $600 million, and it probably is more than that — that could be harnessed in a clear, consistent way through procurement directives to achieve the goals that we all want: to stabilize our economy, support local businesses and move forward in the same way. That’s the whole purpose and goal of the legal tools that we put in here.

I think we talked already, because we went through clauses 8 and 9, about the ability also to put in the immunity and the indemnity provisions so we’re all assured that as we move together, we’re doing it in solidarity.

[1:50 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I guess I’m still struggling. I had hoped for a simple no on that one specifically. I’m still worried about the fact that there may be a need for retroactive legal protection in some way for decisions made between February 1 and the time that the bill gets into royal assent.

I’m wondering, yes or no. Has the government been making decisions on a basis that may put contracts in some sort of dispute with the government that may lead to legal action, going forward?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The answer is no. I gave a more elaborate answer to that about the goals of it because the intention is not anything like that.

It’s not because…. It’s for the reasons that I said before — that we thought we would give something that gives legal stability and consistency to all those entities that are trying to figure out how to get procurement directed towards the right things, including the legal protection, nothing like that in terms of us thinking that there’s any liability or actions that have been taken to date that we’re worried about.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. I appreciate the depth of those answers around the legal component.

One thing I’d like to try to understand a little bit better in this section is the uncertainty created by the maybe, the possibility, the speculation. If you are a procurement entity or if you are, for example, an entity from whom goods or services have been procured by a procurement entity, since February 1 or since having seen this bill and seen this language, you may well have found yourself uncertain or speculating as to possible directions that could be forthcoming.

It would be reasonable for you to read the bill and to have the same kinds of questions that we’ve had in this House. The thing about that is the consequences of that are not just legal, and they’re not necessarily wholly mitigated by the legal protections outlined. There may also be commercial, economic or financial consequences.

For example, if you’re in an infrastructure procurement side, if you’re in a business that has timeliness constraints around procurement, if you’re in a procurement cycle that has seasonality considerations — whether that be agriculture, whether that be the construction season — there may actually be material adverse consequences in terms of delays to procurement, delays to contracting or subcontracting.

Because of those delays, there may actually be additional costs that are incurred, whether those costs are incurred ultimately by government or whether those costs are incurred by entities contracting with government who may or may not be able to recover those commercial costs.

Can the Attorney General speak a little bit to how government has thought through the consequences of those kinds of situations and mitigated them?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we all have to understand that right now there’s an amazingly high level of solidarity. There’s not conflict in how we, all the government procurement entities, work together in this approach. It is a spirit of collaboration and regular communication between entities, both amongst themselves and with the internal mechanisms of government, that spurs this: how do we direct our purchasing power in a different way?

In that context, this part provides the certainty. What would happen is it would be stated in the OIC, clearly and consistently, what the procurement powers are and what the decision-making delegations are. That would create that certainty.

Then with respect to the retroactive clause, there are a few things that I would want to say about that. The reason for the maybe that the member was referring to is because at this point, when decisions are made, we don’t know, throughout all the government procurement entities, what processes they have put in place to direct their purchasing. They’re all sophisticated and have their own legal counsel.

I’m sure that if there are any, even, in place, they would likely be similar or in line with some kind of procurement directive that’s put in place here. But we don’t know that. There would need to be an analysis that was done.

Retroactivity is quite an extraordinary thing to do, to say that we’re operating in such a team approach. We’re going to work together on this so that if you have done something since February 1 in response to supporting the economy and all the things, then we’re going to figure out a way to work together.

The other thing I’ll note about that provision is the June 30, 2025, timeline that’s put in there. That creates a level of timelines around where you could issue a retroactive part of this directive so it’s limited in its time scope. That is to make sure that we can do that if necessary, but it’s not a power that is forever. That limits a lot of uncertainty and also the ability of government to understand what its liability and what the timelines are. It gives this grace period around this crazy time period we’re in for companies.

There would never be a use of a procurement directive that would be there to breach an existing contract. Anything that’s underway…. Obviously, we talked about that at length. We know that government procurement entities have legal duties under contracts and may have procurement processes that are underway, and the laws of the province related to that are obviously in place. But it still gives a powerful way for all of us to work together to direct our attention to protecting the economy.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the thoughtful answer. I certainly respect where the Attorney General is coming from in the language around solidarity and around government entities working together.

The challenge is that the market is not a government entity, so there are a lot of different contracts and subcontracts and commercial transactions that will be affected if a retroactive policy is brought into place or even if a retroactive policy is contemplated. I don’t disagree with the Attorney General’s statements around the attempt to coordinate across government-driven procurement entities, but I think it would be hubris to suggest that there is going to be that level of coordination across a vast and complex market of private actors in a commercial marketplace.

I’d say that although there may be solidarity and the desire for people to come together in this time of threat, people and companies also still have commercial interests. They still have a need to operate, and they still are affected if there are material changes to the conditions under which they are selling goods or selling services, some of which could be spot-priced versus being long-term contracts, some of which could be norms around contracts or norms around markets, which may not necessarily be reflected explicitly in contracts.

My point is that retroactive changes, or even thinking about retroactive changes, have the potential to trigger significant knock-on effects within a complex, multilayered, disaggregated marketplace for procurement of any number of different goods or services.

[2:00 p.m.]

That really is the gist of where I’m trying to go with this. I’m trying to understand what, if any, efforts have been made to try to stabilize those markets or to try to communicate clarity. You can imagine any number of different industries that could easily, upon reading the section of the bill, either have it thrown into question what the practices are going to be going forward or simply not know if change is coming.

If they don’t know that change is coming — if they don’t have certainty, stability, predictability — that in and of itself becomes a damper on activity. It becomes a damper on investment. It becomes a damper on closing agreements and closing contracts.

I met recently with representatives of the construction sector who talked about the sheer number of significant construction projects that are actually being shelved or delayed. So there are major things happening in sectors, including construction, that are not necessarily directly the result of this, to be clear, but are a result of market uncertainty and are causing industries to be frayed even more so.

This uncertainty is likely to create yet more challenges, potentially resulting in yet more layoffs, potentially resulting in the opposite consequences of what we’re trying to achieve.

Could the Attorney General just expand a little bit on what efforts have been made through the processes of consultation and communication to make sure we’re mitigating that kind of uncertainty in the marketplace and trying to reduce the unintended consequences of the uncertainty created by this section of the bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The whole goal of this power is to actually contradict the things that the member talked about as happening on the ground. There are a lot of companies out there that are worried. There’s a lot of uncertainty as a result of actions that are not in our control. That’s resulted in a lot of people wondering about where the new market could be, how they can diversify and how they can have their business run in light of these tariffs.

What this represents is an unprecedented and amazing opportunity for us to unlock procurement in the province in a clear and consistent way. The member, I think, is wrongly characterizing it as something that will cause uncertainty, because everything about the provisions and enabling powers of this is going to provide certainty.

For all those companies that were thinking about participating in procurement processes of the government, it would unlock all this potential out there for the economy, to bring stabilization, to bring opportunities for those workers that might be concerned, those businesses that might be concerned — unlocking that potential in a way that’s never been done before. So it’s actually a very exciting component of the work that we’re doing to respond to the tariffs.

The level of certainty that comes from having a procurement directive…. To note, also, and I think it’s a really important point, the retroactivity just provides retroactive protections like the immunity and indemnity.

In that sense, the certainty of having those purchasing directives…. That government procurement entity is already out there. The companies have already seen that whenever the government procurement entity takes certain actions, they’ve communicated publicly about their procurement. So actually, it could provide greater certainty for us not to say: “Look, we’re coming in, and we’re saying you must do it this way, or we’re going to disrupt what you’ve already done.”

We’re going to have a cooperative response to that, to say: “Look, you’ve done this with your purchasing directives.” Now we have an ability through a procurement directive to issue something that’s clear and consistent, that applies in different ways to different sectors, that has that ability to bring any immunity protections that are in there. The retroactivity, like I mentioned, gives that grace period to understand the disruption that’s happened since February 1.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I appreciate the thoughtful answer.

[2:05 p.m.]

I think the Attorney General opened with a statement that the intent of the section was what she described. I think it’s important we delineate between intent and effect. I think we can acknowledge that the intent may well be exactly what the Attorney General has described, but the effect may actually be contributing to uncertainty, which is where I think it’s important we recognize that a top-down directive from government does not necessarily create stability in a marketplace.

There are very reasonable concerns around effects, intentional or unintentional, coming from this. There is a lack of confidence and stability in the business community. If the effect were equivalent to the intent, then we would probably not see record-low business confidence in the province. But we do have record-low business confidence. We do have numerous different signs of economic withdrawal that, generally speaking, are beta-correlated with a loss of economic confidence or uncertainty.

I’m not trying to denigrate for a second the desired intent of creating stability, but it is transparently evident from various stakeholder engagement conversations, that this bill and this section of this bill, included in that, have created uncertainty. If individuals contracting in a marketplace don’t know what to expect, don’t know what could change and are of the belief that it might well be retroactive, then that creates a reason not to invest. It creates a reason not to act. It creates a reason to delay.

That kind of delay — thinking, for example, about a delay on a construction project…. The Attorney General, I’m sure, is familiar with the seasonality of construction. Short delays could have knock-on effects, pushing phases of construction out of viable construction seasons. There are all manner of different effects that can happen there.

Again, I’d just like to understand, if the Attorney General could illuminate any of the consultation and conversation that has been undertaken, in order to understand what some of those areas of confusion might be, what some of those risks or instabilities might be, what kind of confidence signals markets need in order to act.

Has that been specifically canvassed with stakeholders participating in the various engagement by government? How has it been communicated not only to leaders in the business, labour, Indigenous and other communities but also to individual participants in marketplaces that might very well be subcontractors in government procurement who cannot reasonably be expected to develop an instant expertise in the bill or in changing procurement processes?

How are we making sure that individual small businesses, individual decision-makers have a clear understanding of the implications of this section of the bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I found it interesting that in the description of the uncertainty that the member described in the economy, he didn’t mention the orange man that’s creating all the uncertainty in our economy. That’s the reason that businesses, companies and everybody are feeling the instability and the insecurity. Actually, this provision in its effect provides that stability. It’s an economic stabilization bill.

I’ll just go back to the reason for the actually quite extraordinary provision here that’s about retroactivity. What we’re saying is if a government procurement entity out there has already issued purchase directives that are in response to the tariffs, and that means the companies that the member described that may bid on it or the workers or whatever that might have been involved or changed their practice as a result of that purchasing directive that entity has issued, we would give that certainty to everybody.

It’s a stabilizing thing, in effect. It provides that certainty that we could retroactively cover that purchasing directive as a procurement directive under the powers of this bill. So it, in effect, will do the exact opposite of what the member describes and create that ability for people to understand — in this ever-changing time, when entities have responded in the way they have — that we, as a government, are helping to wrap ourselves around that and provide that certainty and stability for the marketplace.

[2:10 p.m.]

This is an enabling statute. What would happen if it were in force is that when you issued a procurement directive, and ministers considered the entity or the sector that they’re applying that procurement directive for, there would be an opportunity to consider any impacts — we talked about viability or the suppliers and all those things that might come into account with that particular sector or area or entity — to design it in a way that accommodates for that and still unlocking the amazing potential of procurement in the province.

Gavin Dew: At the outset, I would specify that we’re not debating whether or not instability has been caused by the actions of the American president. This isn’t question period. What we’re trying to focus on is the substance and effect, intended or unintended, of sections and subsections of the bill, so I won’t recite political grandiosities in trying to address specifics here.

Just to go back to the prior question, which unfortunately wasn’t answered: could the Attorney General please illuminate in a little bit more depth what efforts have been made to consult with and to communicate with both leaders and institutional groups within the business, labour and other communities around the potential effects of this retroactivity?

In particular, what efforts have been made to ensure that clarity around the intent and effect of this subsection has actually been communicated — again, not just to the top-level business, Indigenous, labour and other leaders that are so privileged as to sit around a table down the line — to individual companies that are trying to understand what the implications of this are and could be?

Those are the individuals or companies that we’re trying to stabilize for, and if they’re confused about this, and there is confusion about this in the marketplace, then it appears there’s been a lack of communication. I just really want to understand how that has been communicated, if at all.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve been able to very extensively talk about the consultation process for the entire bill. I believe that was clause 1, so I’ll refer the member back to that, where we talked about the test committee and how I presented it.

Since that and the tabling of the bill, we haven’t received any specific concerns about the particular provision that the member is talking about related to retroactivity. Then again, if there are particular directives that are issued — as it’s an enabling statute, a particular directive would have to be issued from cabinet — there is an opportunity for that government procurement entity and all the areas around there to understand, as the member is describing, what the particular impacts or stakeholders would need to be engaged when that procurement directive is issued.

Gavin Dew: I don’t dispute the Attorney General’s characterization that at such time as there is a directive, there will need to be those explanations provided. What I want to point out is that it doesn’t matter if a directive has been issued when it comes to creating those questions, creating that uncertainty. What matters is whether there is the perception, the concern, the justified true belief that there could be changes forthcoming.

The possibility of forthcoming changes, the uncertainty about what they could be and what implications they could have at a commercial level have material effects in terms of contracting and subcontracting behaviour. They have material effects in terms of creating reasons for business not to move, reasons for contracts not to be signed, reasons for things to be delayed because there is a justifiable concern that a decision made in the coming days could affect a contract signed mere weeks ago.

We canvassed, extensively, the issue around retroactivity and unintended consequences when we addressed Bill 4 in the House, and there was a disinterest in addressing those consequences from government. I do think it’s really, really important for us to understand the consequences around change, the consequences around uncertainty, the consequences around not knowing what is coming.

Those are real consequences, and they’re particularly real for individual small businesses at the bottom of a pyramid of contracting and subcontracting, where they don’t have access to government. They aren’t at the top of industry associations. They aren’t in the test meetings.

[2:15 p.m.]

Out there in the province, there are countless different small businesses which, if they know anything about this bill, maybe know that there’s this possibility of retroactivity. As a result of that and other drivers of uncertainty, they’re sitting on the sidelines. There may well be costs to them sitting on the sidelines — hard costs, soft costs, opportunity costs.

Again, I’m just trying to understand, in the development of this bill and in the time between weeks ago and today, what efforts are being made to try to communicate to and provide stability to those individual small businesses that don’t know what to expect and for which this kind of language only adds to the uncertainty.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I take your guidance. I think we’re getting, from my perspective, in the line of repetitive questions. I’ve already mentioned that we would never breach a contract or existing laws, so the scenarios that the member has described on a few questions now, I think, I’ve already answered.

I’ve already answered how, in fact, this provision creates certainty for existing purchasing directives that might be in place right now, because entities were responding. This wraps government around those and helps create the certainty that’s needed in the economy.

I feel like I’ve answered this question, and I would ask for another line of questioning.

Gavin Dew: Respectfully, the Attorney General’s characterization of the line of questioning is, in itself, a demonstration that the questions haven’t been answered.

I will go back to the question I just asked. What efforts at communication have been undertaken, to the small business community in particular, in order to provide assurance, clarity around how these changes, particularly the retroactive nature that is enabled by subsection (2), could affect them in the context of procurement?

I really think that is a different question than the question the Attorney General has described. I respectfully agree that she has answered the questions that she described having answered, but she hasn’t answered this one, and I would really like an answer to it, please.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We respond to every correspondence that’s come in to government since this bill has been tabled.

Chair, I have answered that we have never received a concern by any small business, big business, any business about this subsection. I’ve described the certainty that’s provided, and I described the consultation that’s happened and the opportunities that would be in the future if there’s a procurement directive.

I ask for your guidance on the line of questioning.

The Chair: Although the member may not be fully satisfied with the minister’s response, the minister has advised that the question has been answered.

Gavin Dew: I respectfully submit the question has not been answered, and I would respectfully submit that there is a pattern of saying, “We consulted,” but not actually having consulted. We saw it with Bill 4.

We are still hearing from small businesses, from industry associations and from others who had very real, material and substantive concerns with aspects of Bill 4. Yet ministers of this government stood in the House repeatedly and insisted that there had been vast amounts of consultation when, in fact, they had consulted with four business organizations and much of the consultation had happened years earlier. Substantial concerns were raised.

It strikes me there is a bit of a blind eye being turned to concerns being raised. If we, as the opposition, are hearing these kinds of questions and concerns, and government doesn’t think they exist, that really concerns me.

I would ask just one more time for the Attorney General to please describe the proactive communication undertaken to the small business community writ large in order to make sure that individual small businesses with the potential to be affected by directives, including retroactive directives, have a clear understanding of what is and is not on the table.

[2:20 p.m.]

Again, I reiterate that even in the absence of directives being issued, even in the absence of contracts being breached, there is an effect on the marketplace, on individual small businesses that are making or not making or delaying or deferring or changing decisions in a time of uncertainty. Yes, they are responding to the uncertainty created by the broader geo-economic, geopolitical situation we’re dealing with. They’re also responding to the uncertainty created by government itself.

I’m asking in very good faith, with the desire to understand: what effort has been made to communicate to those small businesses? If the answer is none, just say none.

The Chair: Member, please move on to a new line of questioning. Thank you.

Gavin Dew: I would really like an answer to that question. I’ve asked it four times now, and I haven’t received an answer.

The Chair: The minister has responded a number of times to your question. Please move to a new line of questioning.

Gavin Dew: I respectfully submit that the Attorney General is not responding to the question whatsoever, but no point asking it five or six times, so let’s move on.

I have previously flagged, over the course of the last number of minutes, the concern around, again, unintended consequences, unintended costs being incurred as a result of uncertainty. What I do see in the bill, and what we have canvassed at length, is matters around indemnification for legal proceedings. We’ve seen canvassed protection against legal proceedings. We’ve seen there are a number of sections of the bill that cover protecting the individuals who are issuing directives or who are intending to comply with directives, complying with directives.

There’s extensive protection provided for individuals, generally speaking, on the government side, which would generally, in procurement terms, be the buy side of this deal. When procurement changes, if changes are made, and if those changes have adverse consequences, what we’ve seen is that there are significant protections on the buy side. What are the protections on the sell side?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I repeat that nothing in this procurement directive or the operations of government is intended to have, or will have, any procurement entity breach a contract. I think that the member’s line of questioning is related to that, and I’ve answered that before a few times.

What I will say is that from the seller’s perspective, what this does do is open up opportunities that didn’t exist before, opportunities that I’ve heard, from a lot of business owners and people that run small businesses across this province, that they’re excited about. They’re excited about what government spending could do to be redirected into our economy.

For a seller that’s looking for a new market because of the harm that has been done by the tariffs or the trade war that we’re under, this is an opportunity. These procurement directives and our ability to direct procurement are an opportunity.

I think the member mischaracterized the legal protections that are in place. We’ve canvassed it a lot before, but it’s not immunity for procurement directives. It’s a way to shift liability away from government procurement entities to government, in the event that they’re directing their procurement in a way that aligns with what we’ve asked them to do.

[2:25 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I’m confused as to how the Attorney General is confused. I literally read off the headings of the sections, in describing those particular sections. I don’t really understand how the Attorney General thinks I’m recharacterizing things by reading the section titles.

I recognize that, yes, there are opportunities that come from this. I think we all recognize that. I would point out that one of those opportunities is procurement for B.C.-based distillers, who are waiting two months later, after promises made by this government to get B.C. craft spirits onto shelves, but still don’t actually have workable direction to do so.

Going back to uncertainty, going back to the instability created, there doesn’t really appear to have been clear directive in that instance. What you now have is an entire industry that believes it has been issued some level of commitment by this government, that this government will enable it to get its products onto shelves controlled by this government. From all appearances, no actual final outcome has been reached.

There is a small business that believes it’s been promised an opportunity by this government on the very basis that we’re describing, but, in fact, if you were a craft distiller, you’ve now spent money. You’ve incurred opportunity cost. You’ve analyzed commercial options. You might have produced product on the expectation that a procurement decision made by government was going to enable you to have the exact kind of opportunity that the Attorney General is describing, yet that opportunity actually hasn’t been forthcoming.

There’s lack of clear communication from government, lack of clarity around direction, lack of certainty around whether, for example, the underlying ad valorem tax rate might change. You don’t know, and that has costs for you.

My point is that we’ve canvassed significant portions of this bill that provide cover and that shift liability to the folks making or executing procurement decisions to the buy side of the deal. What we haven’t dealt with at all, and what I’m trying to get an understanding of — particularly given the issues I’ve flagged over the last 20 minutes, or however long it has been — is: what are the protections for participants who are on the sell side of government procurement, for whom these changing or potentially changing conditions have adverse commercial consequences?

Is there any cushion provided? Is there any reassurance provided to individuals or companies that are on the sell side of changing government procurement policies, who are going to have adverse commercial consequences? Is anything being done to cushion that blow, or is the assumption that the way that will be addressed ends up being through litigation, and that’s why we’ve got these protections?

The point is, regardless of intent, there will be good British Columbian companies that are the folks we actually want to create opportunity for who have the potential of being adversely affected by decisions made retroactively or not. What are the protections, if any, for those individual small businesses who are on the sell side of these procurement directives?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I think the member is assuming harm to sellers or individuals. I’ve described many ways in which the procurement directives and the powers in this bill are enabling us to unlock procurement and actually provide opportunities for B.C. companies when you’re saying to exclude America from your procurement.

Again, there will be no intention to breach contracts or break rules where there are existing things in place. I’ve said that. I think this might be my fifth time.

Going forward, under a procurement directive, it actually provides an amazing level of opportunity for companies to bid on things, to be part of a procurement process in a way that they’ve never experienced before. I think we all should be excited about that potential. I just would say that, again, this is designed to help our government procurement entities unlock that potential through these procurement directives.

In a way that I talked about extensively, the process and the ability to make sure there are viability and reasonability provisions in there…. When they are enacting procurement directives, they are honouring their legal obligations, which is the law of the land. They are abiding by a fair procurement process, which is the law of the land, but they’re directing it in a way that unlocks the economic potential that we would like to see, and we’re all working together to do that.

Gavin Dew: I think I understand the logic under which the Attorney General was operating, and I don’t disrespect the logic, but I do think it’s problematic to make the claim that I am assuming harm. I’m not assuming harm.

I’m assuming that there is tremendous opportunity in the use of our procurement processes to benefit B.C. companies. I think we all share that objective. I’m not assuming harm. What I’m trying to do is understand the potential of harm and understand whether that potential has been mitigated. That’s what we’re trying to do here.

It’s the same thing we were trying to do with Bill 4. There are a significant number of unintended consequences of Bill 4. We’re already hearing from stakeholders about them, and I’m sure the government is going to be hearing about them in the months and years to follow.

What I’m trying to do is flag, to the Attorney General and to the government, that regardless of the intention to not breach contract and regardless of the belief that this is about benefit not harm, there are always unintended consequences. There are always unintended dynamics that emerge in a complex, multifaceted marketplace of procurement and subcontracting and all of those other areas. That has the potential to create very serious, complex commercial issues for companies that are down the ladder of procurement, subprocurement and all those other things.

Even if there is not a breach of contract, a change in procurement behaviour, a change in procurement timeline, a two-month delay in taking an RFP to market or in closing a deal or in signing off on a purchase order has very material consequences — potentially, very material adverse consequences — for individual companies.

If a company is heavily dependent on labour, for example, and they’re not able to get POs signed off on and that means that work doesn’t start for an extra two months, an extra three months, one of two things is going to happen. They might be eating labour costs, or they might be laying people off. There are serious consequences for small businesses and for people.

What I’m hearing, rather than an effort to try to understand what those consequences might be, rather than an effort to communicate with companies around those consequences, rather than an effort to acknowledge the potential commercial harm and the impact to people or jobs — impacts and consequences that are unintended, that I know are not the intention of this bill, that I know are not the desire of the Attorney General or of the government….

Rather than hearing that those issues could exist, what I’m having instead is the Attorney General telling me that I’m assuming harm. I’m trying to point out serious material issues with consequences for small businesses and for people, and I’m being told that, somehow, I’m Chicken Little.

I really would love to hear the Attorney General articulate to some extent that government understands these unintended consequences, is making an effort to mitigate them and is communicating with the individual small businesses and people that have the potential to be impacted by these changes.

[2:35 p.m.]

We all know there’s uncertainty that’s being created at a geopolitical level. We know that, but why are we not making maximum efforts to mitigate further uncertainty created by legislation that’s supposed to be about stabilizing the economy?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have talked at length about how, actually, this bill does the exact opposite of what the member is describing. It provides the certainty and opportunities.

If the member is characterizing companies that may be harmed by the procurement process, they are characterizing American companies. That’s actually the goal of the procurement directives: to open up opportunities for B.C. businesses and B.C. markets and Canadian markets. That would be the intention and directive.

I’ve spoken at length already about all the processes in place to take into account viability, existing procurement processes so they’re not harmed, to make sure that contracts are respected, to make sure that the government procurement entities have a risk assessment and analysis in place or the minister making sure that happens before a procurement directive is issued and that there would be conversations about impacts and how they can mitigate if there are suppliers or in-progress things that are unviable to change.

We’ve talked about all those safeguards and all that ability in this enabling piece of legislation to do that analysis. What is left is the potential to unlock the amazing opportunity of procurement for B.C. businesses.

Gavin Dew: I understand that at a political level, the Attorney General wants to believe it is only American companies that are affected. I understand the intent. I don’t dispute the intent. I understand exactly where the Attorney General is coming from, or I hope that I do.

What I’m again trying to canvass, particularly around changes, particularly around the prospect of retroactivity, is that…. For example, unless the Attorney General can state unequivocally that no procurement process, no purchase order, no process has been delayed because of the implementation of policies, and I highly doubt that is true, if processes are delayed that might otherwise have been processes of procurement that a British Columbian, Canadian company would be selling into….

When a process is delayed, when a purchase order is delayed, when the completion of a procurement transaction is delayed with a British Columbian company, a Canadian company, as a result of these changes, it means that there very well might be financing costs on goods and equipment. It means there might be labour costs. It means there might be materials costs. It means there might be hard costs and soft costs of delay.

A procurement process, the issuance of a purchase order, any of these things being delayed by weeks, by months — those all have material, adverse commercial consequences for the small businesses that are part of the procurement. It doesn’t matter what the intention is. What matters is that there is delay and that there are adverse commercial consequences and that there doesn’t appear in this instance to be a desire to communicate with those small businesses in order to articulate what the changes could be.

While there is material protection on the buy side around changes to procurement, there doesn’t appear to be any protection around the sell side of procurement. In the absence of any mitigation measures to avoid those adverse consequences, those negative commercial consequences which are not intended but which may occur, is there risk of litigation that could have cost to government because of those things? Is there reputational risk? Is there risk around reducing the number of bidders on procurement because of slow processes, slow purchase orders, slow timelines?

I’m trying to understand that element. I think it’s a really important, very material, very consequential element that is absolutely down in the weeds. That’s exactly why we debate these things on a clause-by-clause basis, to try to get to the bottom of these issues. They have serious, real-world consequences for businesses, for front-line workers, all those consequences.

[2:40 p.m.]

I’m just looking for the Attorney General to articulate an understanding of the fact that those consequences exist and to help us understand how, if at all, they’re being mitigated.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We talked early on and many times about the level of uncertainty that’s existing right now because of the trade war that we’re in. The tools of this bill are to provide certainty.

We talked also about how government procurement entities may, on their own accord, have issued purchasing directives that are related to responding to the tariffs and excluding American companies from procurement. That was all in an approach of us working together to make sure that we’re responding in a form of solidarity. What this bill does is give the legal framework and protections in place to do that.

We talked at length about all the ways in which we would design a procurement directive and take into account a procurement directive’s impact on a different sector. I think that is in response to the member. If he has a specific example, that would be helpful.

In response to the member’s concerns about how it might roll out, this actually provides the certainty about what the procurement directive would be in a clear way that’s publicly available to people; that sets it out clearly, for all government procurement entities, in a consistent way; that would do, in fact, the exact opposite of increasing uncertainty. It would actually do what we need it to do for all government procurement entities out there.

In the context of delays in procurement or things like that, if there’s a specific example that he can provide me where there’s been a purchasing directive or something that has resulted in that, it may be helpful, but the goal that we are doing with this retroactivity provision, again, is about providing that protection and certainty for actors that are out there trying to respond to the tariffs in their own way.

Kiel Giddens: I’m going to re-enter the discussion and maybe pick up some of what the member for Kelowna-Mission was referring to.

I can appreciate the Attorney General wanting to seek some examples or whatnot, but there are American companies that employ thousands of British Columbians as well. There could be situations…. Government has procurement contracts with many American companies, for many reasons. Microsoft. We even used the example, at the very beginning of the debate of this part of the bill, of Starlink having a relationship with Rogers.

These are examples where uncertainty and risks could, in fact, occur, so I’m wondering if, maybe, the Attorney General would want to follow up based on some of those examples that we’ve already discussed in the context of this discussion, but earlier on, back in clause 7.

The Chair: We will take a short recess and return in ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:44 p.m. to 2:56 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We left off with a question about, I think, American companies that operate in Canada and Canadian subsidiaries. It’s a really good opportunity for me to make it very clear that existing purchasing directives have been in response to the tariffs and ones under the procurement directive here. There is a very clear line between something that could be an American company and one that is an American company but operating a Canadian subsidiary here in B.C.

Of course, those companies provide a lot of jobs, they provide a lot of opportunities, and that is not something that we would exclude. It’s a good chance for me to give that surety to people that are out there that are in those companies that are wondering whether or not we would direct procurement away from Canadian subsidiaries of American companies, and we will not.

The next question about Starlink, and actually Microsoft — I think a lot of us are probably sitting in front of our computers with Microsoft products — is another example. There’s a Canadian subsidiary, so it employs people. We wouldn’t exclude it.

The question on things like Starlink is really a way to think about the viability analysis that we were talking about and that is going to be necessary as we direct our procurement. Government and procurement entities will have certain directives, and they’ll have certain things, in their business practices and considerations, that they have to take into account. Certainly, one of those is a goal of having the north of B.C. connected under the goals that we have set ourselves to.

[3:00 p.m.]

We wouldn’t direct procurement away from an entity like Starlink in a way that would make it so that we can’t achieve our directives and that we can’t connect the citizens of British Columbia in a way that we promised we would.

On the flip side, if we go back to the bill, what the bill does is provide an ability for us to direct procurement on a going-forward basis in a way that directs it away from American companies and would be able to spur those kinds of innovation and investment opportunities for B.C.-based innovation and software. If you think of it, all of those things are Canada-based ones.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that response from the Attorney General. I think it is helpful. I think the Starlink one is probably the most relevant example. We talked about it in clause 7 as well. Being very politically charged, it could easily be a target, but it does have what we have been referring to as those unintended consequences. The member for Kelowna-Mission had been using that frame quite a bit.

In keeping with that, the member for Kelowna-Mission brought up the unintended consequences and the potential of harm. Part of that is because these general powers that are being granted to a person or a government entity as defined here are granting some pretty big authorities, obviously. We want to make sure that there are protections in place from that.

I would like to ask the Attorney General: who is providing that oversight or checks in place to prevent these procurement directives from really having those unintended consequences or, even worse, that potential for harm?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It would be cabinet that has the decision-making authority here. We also have to remember that the power under this particular clause that we’re talking about is about how it would have to be clear in the directive who cabinet might delegate that responsibility to for the kind of day-to-day operational stuff, as we talked about previously too.

That would be clear. Whoever has oversight of whatever part of it — it could be an exemption process; it could be particular terms or conditions — would have oversight on that implementation aspect.

Then in terms of the functioning of the directive, I’ll just direct the member back to the debate that we had on clause 7, where I talked about all of the oversight and legal protections that exist with the power to use a procurement directive.

Kiel Giddens: I think I understand the legal protections. I guess the oversight of the delegated person or delegated entity would be provided by cabinet. Is that correct?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe I’ll answer this question on an operational level and then see if that’s what the member is asking about. Of course, the ultimate oversight is cabinet, because it’s a cabinet-power-making authority.

Let’s say cabinet has issued the directive and clearly stated, under this clause 10, what the entity is for a particular decision-making authority under that. We talked about that in my previous answer. Even though the ultimate oversight is cabinet, then the operational oversight of that would be held by that delegated authority, which would be clear in the directive.

Then you have the kind of organizational, operational oversight or mechanisms that would implement. There would be some that would be located within the government procurement entity, and they rightly would have their team of procurement and legal advisers and those kinds of things within that government procurement entity. Then you would have a similar relationship with the same level of operational part of the ministry that is responsible for working with that. You could see ICBC would have a team at the Solicitor General’s ministry — that kind of thing.

The relationship and operational aspect of that would be through the mechanisms of existing relationships in government. Then the ultimate oversight is cabinet, as it is, and any other delegated authority that’s clearly stated in the in the procurement directive.

Kiel Giddens: I think that’s helpful. I guess I’m maybe imagining worst-case scenarios here. Maybe the Attorney General could follow this. What I’m about to suggest is not what I think the intent is. But in the prevention of this scenario from happening, I’d just maybe like some clarity.

If a delegated person were directing procurement or contracting along partisan lines — for example, in held ridings versus non-held, that type of thing — what would be the check on preventing that from happening? How, operationally, in the way the minister just described, would that be prevented?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have very rigorous existing protections in place. I think the member…. There are two scenarios. There’s one where it’s a delegated authority in a government procurement entity, which is an option under here, or it’s a delegated person under an employee of government.

In both regimes or instances, there is a very rigorous legal framework that gives bounds and authorities and protects from corruption, misfeasance of public office — all of those things that I think the member is referring to. What I think he’s describing is somebody using a delegated authority for improper purposes and likely illegal purposes, so the existing protections that are in place to prevent that from happening across government would apply.

[3:10 p.m.]

First of all, there are all the things I talked about, about the existing policies and procedures that are in place. The Financial Administration Act and PIDA would be other examples. There are claims of misfeasance of public office. There would probably be a whole bunch of liabilities that might attach to that individual in that instance and that would apply to any public servant or a person existing in a government procurement entity.

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

I think things like corruption go a little bit beyond what I had envisioned in my hypothetical example. I guess more political-in-nature or ideological gatekeeping, in some way, is what I was referring to, almost like political favouritism. How could that be prevented, and who’d be the oversight preventing that from happening?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, procurement processes are very well developed in their legal protections against things like the member describes. The processes and procedures that are in place to keep political decision-making away from a procurement process are very clear, and there’s a hard line with that.

There would be many things about the duties of a public servant, their employment duties — the Financial Administration Act, which I already mentioned, along with other legal protections around procurement processes and the fairness of procurement process. There’s tons of law on that that would, of course, be in place at all times. Those are the rigorous protections we have in place against things like that.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe a less extreme example than the one I just used. I’m wondering how the government might ensure that procurement directives don’t disproportionately benefit urban or Lower Mainland contractors at the expense of northern or Interior suppliers or workers.

Obviously, I represent a rural community, and I think it would be good to get that clarity, as well, from a procurement perspective.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Good question. I think that’s the kind of ability of the flexibility that’s built into the bill.

To the member’s point, there may be parts of the province that are harder-hit by the tariffs and the trade war that we’re in, and there may be certain industries that are harder-hit from the trade war that we’re in.

The flexibility of this bill gives the ability for the procurement directives to be directive in the way that the member would say may be required to make sure that we are addressing that particular issue through a way that actually is, I think, one of the most powerful ways government can do with its spending. That is to direct our procurement in a way that would support either communities or sectors. You can imagine scenarios where that is necessary in in the trade war that we’re in.

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

If the Attorney General could, maybe, indulge me on this one a little bit further, I’m wondering, as an example of a directive, could a delegated person actually consider regional exemptions or tailored directives that support the unique economic realities of a region like northern B.C., which might be more heavily impacted or trade-exposed?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think that’s a good segue to the other provisions that are in this part. So (e) and (f) are ways that might give cabinet the flexibility of doing exactly the things that the member contemplates.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for providing that clarity.

I wanted to stick with the theme of unintended consequences a little bit more, though, before moving on. Are there any accountability provisions if a directive results in reduced labour standards, worker displacement in some way or exclusion of certain workforce segments?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have labour standards in the province. We have employment standards. We have all the laws of application to employees and employers that exist in the province. The powers of the procurement directive under clause 7 are not powers that would allow an employer to avoid the standards and the Ministry of Labour and all the work that our province has done to have those standards in place.

Basically, there would be nothing in this bill that would give a power to cabinet, and those laws would stand.

Kiel Giddens: I guess, but just given the sweeping kind of authority, if the directive did override employment standards, for example, would it not have the authority to be able to do that under this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is taking us back to clause 7 and the exact wording of the power. It’s the relation to the procurement of goods or services. It has nothing in there about the ability to issue a directive about employment standards, for example.

[3:20 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I guess so.

Maybe another example: instead of employment standards, if it were overriding procurement legislation that we already talked about, those provisions that are in the procurement laws that are existing, could it override those in a directive, if they conflicted?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I know this because I’m looking back at my notes on clause 7. We talked extensively about all of the protections that are in the actual power-making of issuing a directive.

The clause that we’re on right now is specifically about the delegation and things underneath that directive. The powers that are binding it and that make sure that the thing that the member suggests is not possible are under clause 7. We have talked about that.

Kiel Giddens: I do realize we’ve talked extensively about section 7, but in providing these general powers, we’re giving the delegated person or entity the ability to make these directives. These are pretty significant powers that we are granting, so we’re just trying to make sure that in the government making the delegation, the individual or person or entity that is delegated to is conducting themselves appropriately and fairly.

I know we talked about many topics in clause 7, but I think, given that this is providing those powers in this clause, it is still relevant in this clause. I’m wondering if I could ask the question again. In this context, could procurement laws that are existing be overridden by the delegated person in this case?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, because you have to remember that the delegated person under the sections of this clause doesn’t have the power to make a procurement directive. The power to do that is held by cabinet under clause 7. That procurement directive will be clear, transparent, out in the open and abiding by laws.

The delegated person has a specific role under that procurement directive that’s issued by cabinet. That role would be, like some of the examples we talked about, depending on that procurement directive, which will be up there and transparent about what that is.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe it’s more a matter of implementation of a directive that is ordered from cabinet in this case.

I want to go back to procurement directives that could mandate or favour specific labour affiliation models, go back to the discussion we already had on community benefits agreements or union-only arrangements that exclude certain open-shop labour and how that aligns with the principle of fair and open access to public contracts.

Could that implementation by this delegation authority actually occur?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have had an extensive conversation about CBAs and the question that the member has asked. I would say: asked and answered. If there’s a question about clause 10, I’m happy to take it.

Kiel Giddens: It’s an important question. I think it speaks to something that we have still remained concerned about. It’s the potentially arbitrary nature of procurement directives. In thinking about the scenarios where a procurement directive is not fair or excludes some of these labour models, if an individual or a business disagrees with the directive that’s being implemented, is there a way to challenge it, or is there a way to appeal it in some way?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. There are courts of plenary jurisdiction in this province where, if there’s a legal issue that a person has, they can bring it to court. There’s also the relationship opportunity of solidarity that we’re having, where we’re receiving a lot of….

I know JEDI has an email that’s put out there just for businesses or individuals to come forward on how things are impacting them that the government is doing or the tariffs. We also have a direct relationship of government with organizations and businesses, which would be an avenue to address any concerns.

Kiel Giddens: Goodwill, I guess, in that relationship. I think that is important. I think changes can be made, but it is…. A business may be relying on that. It may not be enough clarity, I guess, for that business, so they would rely on the courts, and there may be unintended consequences. We’ve talked about that significantly.

Just to be clear, that example where there’s a voluntary change that government makes is one option, or the courts. Is that correct? Those are the two options for an appeal or change?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, I would say, again, that my answer previously stands. I would suggest that through a procurement process, what the member is describing, if there is something illegal about the procurement directive that has been issued, the avenue would be the court.

I talked previously about when the procurement directive is issued by a minister and the flexibility of the regulatory-making power to adjust and adapt procurement directives as they go to respond to a changing situation on the ground.

The bill, being an enabling statute, gives that flexibility for constant adjustment to make sure we’re hitting the right mark and we’re actually doing what it’s intended to do.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just continuing: are the directives subject to a judicial review, if that were to occur? What would be the legal test for assessing their reasonableness or constitutionality, in that case?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have to think of it this way. Generally speaking, the court system exists to make sure that legislators like ourselves sitting here are abiding by existing laws, and the laws set out by that. The courts are not policy-makers, so they don’t set out to disagree or agree with a policy that the government made. What they would be tasked with doing is to understand whether or not it was in the confines of the law.

There are a couple ways you can look at that when it comes to procurement. One would be whether it was ultra vires, that the province didn’t have the constitutional authority to make that decision. I can’t imagine this scenario with procurement, but there is an example of a challenge there where you would do that, or that somehow it was against the constitution.

The other thing that could be challenged is the area of procurement. Fairness related to procurement processes is a pretty well-developed area of law. If something happened in government procurement entity that was in breach of laws, then the courts would be the place that you could have that tested, whether or not it was or wasn’t.

In terms of just not liking the procurement directive, which I think was the question, the courts would only be able to…. If you don’t like something, you go to your government, and you ask them to change it, right? You go to the Legislature and your MLA and the minister and you say: “This is why I don’t like this policy directive.”

If it’s against the law somehow, and there’s a breach of the law, you go to the courts and you say, “Well, we think that the province doing this stuff was outside of their powers,” and/or whatever other claim you might be able to make.

Kiel Giddens: I think maybe the Attorney General could follow that I’m trying to just ascertain and bring clarity for businesses on what their avenues are for appealing or otherwise disagreeing with a decision. I will take that answer.

Maybe along the same time, for their contracts, to provide clarity for that in the context of this, we’re trying to bring certainty for businesses. Can the Attorney General confirm again how the directives apply to private businesses and their existing contracts that they may have?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I know this is an asked-and-answered scenario that I’ve already canvassed.

Kiel Giddens: Right. I’m trying to provide certainty for businesses and the public in this. That’s the reason I ask the question. Again, trying to provide that certainty, maybe I’ll talk a little bit more about the accountability and transparency side of things. I think that also helps with business certainty and their investment decisions and things like that.

Procurement is big dollars, big contracts. We’ve talked extensively about public sector projects, for example, major projects. Looking at any one of those, they have complex procurement that could potentially be impacted by this. We want to make sure that we have an understanding of those directives, so businesses can engage in public procurement and they can get an understanding of what their intent is, what they can and can’t do.

I’m wondering if the directives, once they’re made, once they’re implemented, once the general powers are granted to a designated person or the other definitions we’ve talked about — at what point will they be made public? Is there any provision requiring their publication?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I know this was also asked and answered. I’ll take the member back to the debate where I was struggling to say “publicly available as soon as practicable,” which was under clause 7(5).

Kiel Giddens: Just to confirm though. Under the directives, once they’ve been delegated, will MLAs have no way to review or debate these directives or their regulations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Many things are open for debate, especially as MLAs and representatives of the community. I would expect that if they had a particular issue or concern with anything that came out of something that’s published or issued as soon as practicable to the public, you would have many forums to raise your concerns, if there are any, about them. I guess I would just say no; there would be always opportunities to do that.

It’s very common to have a regulatory-making power for cabinet under almost every instrument that exists. There are transparency requirements for those and a clear ability to understand what powers are used and how they’re made.

Kiel Giddens: Again, we’re getting to maybe the crux of, overall, this part of the bill. It just does give that sort of unchecked power, because MLAs don’t have that ability to debate this, the directives, before they’re issued or at the implementation phase. Really, we’re trying to say that British Columbians deserve transparency and legislative oversight, which this is taking away. Even in the case of an appeal or some sort of a challenge that a business is making, the Attorney General did say that someone could go to their MLA.

In this case, it’s after the fact, after that directive. They can’t go to their MLA to discuss this so that they could bring that argument to the Legislature. These directives are going to be sweeping in nature and could change things for private businesses. There’s no ability for MLAs to actually provide that check, that oversight. That gets to the crux of this bill and this section overall that we’re talking about.

Because we’re at that point of discussion here, I guess I’m wondering if the Attorney General can comment. Does she agree that giving cabinet the powers to act without ever coming back to MLAs is warranted in this case, and why?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Actually, the interesting thing about this bill is that this is kind of an unprecedented involvement of the Legislature in procurement, because procurement generally never comes through legislation or never comes to the Legislature in general.

Procurement policies, not only for government procurement entities in here but also the act of government and the different agencies and ministries and how they do procurement, are not a legislated role, actually, at all.

As a result of that, I think I would flip what the member said. I say this is an unprecedented way to involve the Legislature and the government in general about how we want to direct procurement, including the debate that we’re having right now.

We’re extensively talking about how procurement could go and should go, how it can benefit the province, the solidarity that comes from that and the clear roles and understanding of transparency, of how procurement directives will be issued — where they’ll be posted as quickly as possible, what kind of powers are put into a directive and the extensive conversation we’ve had of all the protections that are in place.

What our government is doing is quite unprecedented, by involving the Legislature in this debate. I think that is a way for all of us to be part of the solutions that are being put forward to help our government, our country and our province respond to the tariff threat.

[3:40 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I guess I respectfully disagree with the Attorney General on that.

I do think that this is not involving the Legislature in a meaningful way when, overall, in this bill, we’re providing the enabling authority for government to not come with the laws for British Columbians and the ability to debate, the ability…. Fortunately, we hope to see amendments later, on part 4 of the bill, but as we’re talking about procurement, there still are problems with this.

The opposition had brought up the topic, the idea that these directives could be arbitrary, and this is a theme and a topic that is a concern. We’ve talked extensively about the fact that being arbitrary is a problem for the business community. That’s a challenge for them, because uncertainty hampers investment decisions. It hampers the ability to access capital. It hampers the ability to make decisions on labour and employment and hiring. So things like that are what have brought the business community to actually oppose part 2 of the bill, the procurement directives overall.

I’ve heard from some of these organizations, as I’m sure government members hopefully have, but I want to quote, first of all, the CFIB, who represents small and medium-sized businesses across Canada. They said that part 2 allows cabinet to issue arbitrary procurement directives while shielding officials from liability. They clearly have asked for this part of the bill to be removed overall. They don’t agree with it, and it’s something they think shouldn’t be in there.

Large businesses across the province went even further in this step, and they have spoken a little bit more about it. They put a press release out on March 28. This is when the amendments, including the amendment we had to this clause, were public and had been seen by the public at that point. The Business Council of B.C. said that part 2 allows cabinet to issue procurement directives that are arbitrary without legislative scrutiny, bypassing financial controls and shielding officials from liability. So obviously they’re asking for this to be removed.

Will the Attorney General, given that the business community finds significant arbitrary nature of this ability to provide procurement directives, consider pulling this part of the bill completely and consult with the business community at this time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve articulated quite a bit about the controls and protections and all of the considerations that are put into this section, and my answer to the member is no.

I am excited, and our government is excited, about what these opportunities of unlocking procurement will do for this province, will do for B.C. businesses, will do for Canada. I am excited about unlocking that, and we all are, as quickly as possible.

The instability and the threat that has happened in a very short amount of time to this province has led to solidarity in helping us act and work together. The tools of this section will allow us to unlock buy B.C., buy Canada in an unprecedented way with this government and this province.

I’m actually surprised by the question — that the member would be asking us to pause, to step back and to not try to unlock the amazing potential of procurement and our ability to stand in solidarity in this province, at a time where so many things are under threat and action is needed as quickly as possible.

We provided many discussions so far about how there would be opportunities for discussion when procurement directives are issued and the flexibility of those regulations to adapt to procurement. We’ve talked about that many times.

I would just say that, again, I’m surprised by the statement. I would hope that everybody in the House and every party in this Legislature would understand the need to act quickly, would understand the potential and the solidarity that we’re tapping into by helping our government procurement entities act in solidarity with government with these kinds of procurement directives.

[3:45 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Obviously. the Attorney General and I are at a point of disagreement.

The opposition disagrees with this part and much of Bill 7, as we’ve talked about in detail. I’m bringing this forward not on my own behalf and on behalf of the opposition; this is being brought forward by the business community in the province of British Columbia. The minister said that the government is excited and she’s excited about this, but the business community clearly isn’t.

I would ask this again, respectfully, on their behalf. Will the Attorney General actually pull this and sit down with the business community? Will they commit to the consultation that is actually necessary with them?

They have brought forward real concerns. They said: “Part 2 allows the cabinet to issue procurement directives that are arbitrary, without legislative scrutiny, bypassing financial controls and shielding officials from liability.” They have concerns.

Will the government actually consult with the business council, with the CFIB, with the chamber of commerce and many others who have these concerns?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have heard from, actually, many businesses that are excited about the opportunity to unlock procurement and have the ability to compete in a different way, a new and profound way when it comes to procurement in B.C. and what that opens up for innovation, investment and the ability to scale up in a way that they’ve never been able to do before. This is what I’m hearing. Nothing in this bill gives arbitrary power or shields the government from liability. I think we’ve talked about that in length.

I am very excited about these provisions, and I’ve heard from a lot of businesses that are as well. Some of them are even telling me: “Finally we have a government that’s interested in unlocking the ability of procurement to support the local economy.” That’s what I’m hearing, and I know that’s what our minister is hearing in JEDI as well.

I think the balance of these provisions and the protections and the things we’ve talked through at length do it in a very responsible way.

The Chair: Before you begin, Member, I’m just going to advise the committee that I feel that we may be straying into debating the overarching principles of the bill.

We are currently on clause 10 as amended, and I would ask members to keep their comments focused on that clause, please. Thank you so much.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for that.

We are talking about the general powers that are being granted for, obviously, the procurement directives in this case. The Attorney General had talked about being excited about these businesses that she’s hearing from, but we are not hearing from these on the opposition side.

Publicly, in a case of a press release, we’re hearing from the largest businesses in the province, saying that they don’t agree with the procurement directives power, by cabinet, being granted to a person who then implements the directive. They’re worried about how that is actually going to impact them.

[3:50 p.m.]

For clarity for this chamber, maybe the Attorney General could provide which businesses are actually supporting this clause of the bill and the overall section of the bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m happy to get the names from JEDI to the member at some point — I don’t have them in the team that’s with me today — of people that are supportive of procurement and the direction of procurement.

I know very recently I met with a business that does battery storage, close to my riding. It’s actually quite amazing. They are able to store battery power and protect against power grids that may have…. With the clean energy, it helps to store it when they’re not peak times. They have expressed frustration to me about the fact that getting procurement and getting the ability to be supported by the B.C. procurement process has been a frustration for them. A lot of their business dealings are outside of B.C.

The government’s ability to unlock procurement and our ability to support those local, innovative businesses is a way that we can help transform the economy and support local growth.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the example from the Attorney General. In the case of that example, would there be meetings being had with a business like that? Is it because there are certain select industries that would be able to take part in the procurement directives — like the battery storage, like clean tech — or is that part of the overall direction? Is that what’s happening with this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, the member asked me for examples of companies that have talked to me about procurement issues in B.C. and long-standing issues related to whether they can access it. I gave an example, and there are other examples to give.

Again, we talked about how there is no actual procurement directive at this stage. The procurement directive would be made in the future by a minister, once the bill is in place, and it would take into account all of the things that we talked about before.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe, to bring it up from specific examples, could certain industries, for example, be favoured? Certain select industries then, a select industry or type of business — is that who government is trying to direct procurement directives towards?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I think we’ve canvassed this before. This is an enabling statute, and it gives powers to cabinet in the categories described in this bill. This is just an enabling statute. I don’t come here talking about cabinet intention or how the powers will be used. I come here talking about the powers of the bill, what it would enable, decisions to be made and how they would be made.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that it’s the enabling legislation. That does seem to suggest that cabinet chooses which industries or which businesses, in that case. I do see that as a concern. It does still leave the overall issue that there is a disagreement between the largest businesses in the province that the Business Council represents and the government in this case.

A simple question, maybe, to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General acknowledge these concerns do in fact exist?

The Chair: Member, can you help me to understand how that pertains to clause 10, please, as amended?

Kiel Giddens: I’m merely trying to ensure that…. As a delegated person who is implementing the procurement directive that they have received from the government, as it’s being implemented, as regulations are coming out…. I’m trying to understand, exactly, the impact overall on the business community.

The business community does claim to have disagreement with the procurement directives overall, and as we’re getting to that implementation phase, I think there’s concern there.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the Attorney General could simply acknowledge these concerns, whether they exist or not, yes or no.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s the job of government to understand the perspectives of all people related to the work that we do, and that’s a job I take seriously.

The letters the member refers to and the perspectives from different members — of course. That’s why we had the test committee. One of the suggestions, and I think it was from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, was to remove, from section 11 that we’re coming to…. We made those changes.

It’s one of the reasons why we provided more clarity in this clause 10, related to who the delegated authority was. It’s my job to understand, and our job to understand, what the different perspectives or concerns are and then to act in the public interest of British Columbians and the economy. I think this bill strikes that balance from our ability to do that, and we’ve made adjustments along the way.

Kiel Giddens: I didn’t quite hear an acknowledgement that the Business Council’s concerns are there, so maybe I can give the Attorney General another opportunity to do so. Also, can the Attorney General, JEDI and cabinet sit down, specifically, with the Business Council on this case to acknowledge their concerns?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We replied to that particular letter that the member is talking about on April 23, so of course I acknowledge the concerns and have responded. I also consulted with the test committee, as I mentioned.

The organization is made up of many business leaders, labour leaders, First Nations leaders, a whole spectrum. We’ve taken into account all of the feedback, made adjustments through the amendments we’re working through here, and we believe we struck the right balance to unlock the potential of procurement and the economic opportunities that lie there and put the right protections and clarity in place.

Kiel Giddens: I think we’ll still, obviously, have to agree to disagree on this clause of the bill in many ways. I’ll end my time shortly here and return this rightly to the critic for Attorney General.

Before I do, I know the Attorney General did reference clause 11, and we expect that it’s going to be an amendment. I’m not sure when it would be in order to ask for the clarifications on what those amendments actually would be for. I don’t know when we would have the chance to debate that or not.

The Chair: If I may respond to the member, when we come to clause 11, you can have the opportunity. It’s on the order paper as outlined for today. When we get to clause 11, you will have the opportunity to have that discussion.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for that clarification, Madam Chair. At this point, I will yield the floor to the critic for Attorney General.

Steve Kooner: I would like to start on this clause by referring to something that was brought up by my colleague the member for Kelowna-Mission.

There was a discussion in terms of questions and answers between the Attorney General and the member for Kelowna-Mission specifically on this clause. I believe the discussion was on subclause 10(2). The questions were on retroactivity and also on procurement directives.

[4:00 p.m.]

References were made to buyers and sellers, and there was some discussion from the Attorney General that there are protections for the buyers, and then follow-up questions to the Attorney General were in regard to what protections there are for the sellers.

One of the responses was that one of the protections for the sellers is that we’re dealing with British Columbian businesses, and they would definitely be in favour of these directives under this particular clause because it would exclude American businesses and it would open up opportunity for British Columbian businesses to actually be involved in these procurement directives and be able to sell.

In relation to that, I just would like a clarification. An example I should refer to…. The Attorney General brought up the example of Microsoft and some American companies that are operating here but are treated like Canadian companies because they register themselves here, and they operate subsidiaries here. Those subsidiaries, I guess, are treated as British Columbian companies.

My follow-up question to that, just for a clarification…. There may be other companies, other subsidiaries that are not Microsoft, but they may be other types of companies. Although they may be registered in British Columbia, they may be sending all their revenue and their benefits back to the U.S.

How does that example apply to American companies that would get the green light in regard to this provision, when they may be technically Canadian companies, but in substance they may still be American companies? The question is asking for clarification to that question that was asked and was discussed earlier in discussing Canadian subsidiaries that are American-owned.

Can the Attorney General provide explanation on that?

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: You could imagine a scenario where the procurement directive gives a delegated decision-making authority for somebody to understand what potential exemption could be. In an extreme scenario, you would have somebody that is not really acting as a Canadian subsidiary and essentially is just doing that to bid on contracts or doing something like that.

It’s trying to hide the fact that it’s not actually contributing to the B.C. economy through jobs or all the things that we would want to protect. Then you would have the ability to have somebody on a more operational level, in real time, that could move quicker, assess whether or not that particular entity should be classified as a U.S. company or a Canadian subsidiary and whether or not that would apply.

I think there would be a level of flexibility built into this for that analysis to take place and for cabinet and the delegated decision-maker to structure it in a way that makes sure it’s got its full potential which is directed at the real economic growth that we want to see.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that answer, but I have a follow-up question to that on the safeguards. I understand that the Attorney General mentioned there will be some sort of flexibility of guidelines to make sure these directives don’t benefit American companies that are under the disguise of being Canadian subsidiaries but that don’t really contribute to British Columbia. I understand that point.

[4:05 p.m.]

In terms of the flexibility, the guidelines that can be used to prevent people taking advantage of these rules and to get some procurement contracts, what specific guidelines are there? Is there some sort of stringent framework that can be used to prevent these Canadian subsidiary companies that are, in substance, not really subsidiaries but actually American companies that may be shell companies trying to get benefits. What sort of framework is there?

We’re talking about millions of dollars. Again, I would like to mention that the Attorney General, in an earlier part of this debate, mentioned that these directives could be possibly handling up to $600 million, which is a lot of money. If there is some sort of flexibility in preventing foreign entities from getting benefits under these procurement directives, do we have some sort of standard that will be followed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: To continue the discussion about the ability to have that power and exemptions or through that delegated decision-maker, I actually think it might be difficult. You have to set some kind of standard or rule, but then, in application, you’d have to have that ability to screen whether or not that fits in or not.

We also have a really exceptional team of trade lawyers and lawyers that operate in that space and that would give guidance — say, if there was a procurement directive that was issued by cabinet through a minister — in the implementation that could be able to guide how that would show up. We would make sure that the concerns the member raised of it could be addressed at that level.

Steve Kooner: I understand the answer that was just provided, but as throughout this debate, throughout different sections, a concern that I have, a concern that has been raised with me as MLA and being here, is that there seems to be all this discretion. This discretion is around authority that’s in this bill allowing to deal with millions of dollars or maybe even to lead to billions of dollars.

My concern is that there may be some discretion, that there may be some flexibility, but if there is not any stringent standard, there could be issues. In an earlier part of the debate yesterday, my colleague from Kelowna-Mission referred to historical events that led to scandals from procurement contracts that were at the federal level.

There are lessons that were learned from that part of history, and the worry is that when we’re dealing with procurement measures here, and we don’t have stringent standards or we’re just allowing a whole bunch of flexibility with unfettered discretion, that could lead to a really problematic situation, especially as we are in a very dire financial situation in this province right now with deficits.

If there are no set standards right now on the flexibility that’s going to be given to the appropriate entities under this particular clause, will there be standards adopted, moving into the future, to make sure that there is accountability, some stringent standards, so that whoever’s applying the directives, pursuant to clause 10, whoever’s getting the delegated authority, is doing it appropriately and following checks and balances.

In accounting, often you hear about accountability checks and balances when you’re looking at audits. What were the checks and balances? Where are the checks and balances for whoever’s going to be applying these measures in clause 10 here?

[4:10 p.m.]

I guess, if the Attorney General can enlighten me on that…. If we don’t have it right now, will we have it in the future? If we will have it in the future, what will it look like?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The standard-setting would start by the creation of the OIC itself. As we talked about, the clauses that allow the powers, and particularly the one that we’re talking about right now, allow an ability to really set out in that OIC exactly the intent of it. You could even go down to defining a class of procurement entities and all those other powers that exist in this section.

Once you’ve done that and you have that, then you’re very clear about who you’ve given discretionary authority to, to apply that. They were already setting that standard at the outset, and then the discretionary authority is exercised.

There would be a lens that they would apply to it, where you’d have to develop, as the member said, in that future date, the ability of how to discern between…. How do you meet that standard that’s been set, the procurement directive? What’s a U.S. subsidiary? What’s one that is probably more not operating in good faith under the procurement directive?

That decision-making and these guidelines — that’s a regular process of government to make sure that everything operates under the clear directive. Then using precedent and all those other guidelines, you might attach to that directive in the implementation of it. Yeah, that would be part of the process.

In the design of this, flexibility is built in exactly for the reason that the member is talking about. You could actually adjust pretty quickly. If you’ve set out your standards or your procurement directive, and you’re finding in a particular sector that something is recurring or there is an issue in application, you can by regulation, a quick process, turn on and off different sections of it, to amend a standard that’s been set through the procurement, to change a directive, to adjust.

That’s the reason for the flexibility, because it’s a really fast-moving and ever-changing dynamic that we’re in. You want to have the ability to change standards quickly, once they’re set out with that regulation authority, and then the proper discretion to be able to apply that standard in varying circumstances, depending on what might actually come at that person or with that government procurement entity.

It is like a regime that is designed to do that in an effective way and has the right transparency and checks and balances in it to effectively do that.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for her response. It’s helpful. It shows some insight in what the government is feeling, that there might be some checks and balances. But I do honestly feel that the checks and balances need to be more rigorous.

One way checks and balances could probably be rigorous…. When you’re looking at auditing procedures and policies, not only is there discussion about checks and balances, there are also discussions about review mechanisms. How many times is an authority going back to check that all of the guidelines are being implemented properly, just to make sure nothing inappropriate is happening? If something inappropriate has happened, well, then there can be mitigation, and there could be stop-actions issued.

That leads to my next question. In regard to this particular clause, because it involves delegation of discretion, will there be any review mechanisms? Is the government planning actual review mechanisms in this particular legislation?

I don’t see it in this particular clause, but if not, the Attorney General has mentioned there’s a degree of flexibility. In that flexibility, is the government planning to bring some sort of review mechanisms?

The Chair: Members, it is now 4:15, and we’re going to take a very brief recess until 4:20. Please be back in your seats at 4:20. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

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

Hon. Niki Sharma: The question was — I think we got this right, but there was a bit of a break in between — the reviewability of the delegated person and how that works.

The first thing is that, legally speaking, so the public knows, a delegated person cannot do anything that the delegator can’t do. The legal confines that are on cabinet through the power-making authority would apply also to the delegated person under this section. We start with that. Then all the financial controls and all those other laws that we talked about extensively that are around that power would still apply to that delegated person.

Then the standard practice for a delegated person is to have a delegation authority document or guideline that helps that person understand what their scope is under that delegation. That would include rules of conduct, all those things they have in their job that apply to them, especially public servants, doing their job.

Steve Kooner: I have a follow-up question to the Attorney General’s response. I thank the Attorney General for her response.

You see, in various examples through daily life, there are checks and balances. There are some reviews. Lawyers have to deal with the Law Society, and the Law Society has a questionnaire, “Have you done this in your practice?” and they get a reflection, a report. In school, you have students. They get report cards, in seeing if certain benchmarks are met.

In different industries, there are certain standards like, maybe, could be annual standards or quarterly standards or tri-semester standards. In this case, I understand that there will be some delegated authority, and hopefully, they operate within a professional code of conduct that the delegates may have. Will there be some sort of review mechanism? Why I bring it up again is because the subject matter here is very significant. It’s going to involve millions of dollars.

[4:25 p.m.]

I understand that there’s a professional code of conduct, but is there a review mechanism where these delegates will be reporting back or somebody will be sending a questionnaire to fill out, “Have you done this? Have you done this? Have you done that?” — that type of accountability review mechanism. Will there be some of that in regard to the delegated authority here in clause 10?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. I’m just going to talk through with the member with his question about how delegated authorities work within government right now, because they exist in many different places.

[4:30 p.m.]

I think we can assume that this, in practice, would be at the higher level of the delegated authority, so not a small matter as the member suggested. It would be at that level. What happens in those scenarios: if there is a delegation through a similar enactment like this one, the delegated person would have a delegation matrix, which would outline how that decision is to be made and how their delegated authority is to be used.

Then the reporting of that delegated authority, especially for serious matters, and the oversight or review would go to the deputy minister, in that scenario. The oversight of that decision, of course, would be all of the standards of conduct.

Then there are many other levels of review and accountability for public service and public servants in the way that they conduct themselves, where the work would show up in a lot of different ways — like Public Accounts, the Auditor General, the Financial Administration Act and all those processes of review that review the conduct of government and that that delegated person would be subject to and decisions would show up on.

Then, of course, with a matter like this, where it’s a cabinet decision-making authority and such a significant issue, there would likely be a report-out directly to cabinet on how these procurement directives are doing and how they’re showing up.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer.

The last question that I asked was in regard to review mechanisms for these individuals carrying out delegated authority. Is there a mechanism for those people that are grieved as a result of certain actions taken, and they were left out?

There are certain decisions that were taken under clause 10, and they want to appeal the decision of why they were left out. Is there a review mechanism or an appeal mechanism that could be initiated by the grieved party?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered. I believe, with the line of questioning from the previous member, we’ve canvassed the way to appeal procurement directives or decisions under that.

Steve Kooner: Earlier the Attorney General had mentioned that some of the review mechanisms could eventually rest with the deputy minister, but the deputy minister is not elected. What accountability do they have? Is that accountability to the cabinet minister? What’s the final accountability?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s actually for a very particular reason — that procurement processes are designed to be kept away from elected officials by design, to make sure there’s a clear line between something that impacts the financial procurement decision and that fair process, and the matrix of that and of political interference.

We talked about it previously, canvassing how you protect against improper conduct. For something like procurement, the key way that you do that is not having decisions that are related to procurement in the hands of political decision-makers.

Steve Kooner: That leads me to my next line of questioning. We were talking about delegates. There was a brief explanation that was provided a little bit earlier of what delegates do. I’m going to go to the language of clause 10 here.

[4:35 p.m.]

It states that in issuing a directive under this part, “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following….” Under this new amended clause, it states: “delegate a matter to a minister, a person who is employed in the government, or a person who is a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity.”

Some explanation was provided, but the explanation that was provided was related to another question. That was not directly on the point.

I will ask a clear, pointed question. In regard to the definition, in interpretation, in government’s perspective, what are they including in this definition of “delegate” in “delegate a matter”? Why was this particular word chosen in this subsection (a)?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In this sense, in this clause, “delegate” has its ordinary meaning of what it would mean in ordinary language usage.

Steve Kooner: In the ordinary meaning, sometimes there are legal references as well. A delegate could act as an agent, could act as a representative, could act as an employee or could have full, unequivocal authority. Those definitions vary whether somebody is an agent or somebody is a representative; they have different legal meanings to them.

When the Attorney General is referring to delegate and saying it has the ordinary meaning, sometimes there could be a legal meaning, too. Is there a specific legal meaning to delegate in this sense?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is actually taking us back to a case from 1943, Carltona. I almost used the Latin phrase, but I spared everybody here from that. Maybe that’ll be my next response.

It’s a very well-defined term when it comes to government, and it essentially is just giving someone a task, your task, to someone else. The way that you know it in the section is it says “delegate a matter.” It’s not related to a person.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for the explanation, and thank you for your reference to that particular case.

Going further down in this section, the amended subclause (b) states: “Confer a discretion.” Why was that specific word used, “confer”? Why not use a word such as “give” or “authorize”? Why was that particular word used?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a term that when we did a search in B.C. legislation shows up 138 times. It is just a common term that is used to describe exactly what it says: conferring a discretion on something.

Steve Kooner: Further down the line of this questioning, in terms of interpretation of clause 10, the next word that could be a little ambiguous or there could have been other words used as well…. In subsection (b), it states: “Confer a discretion.” Why not use the words “authorize” or “instruct”? Why use the particular word “discretion”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The simple answer to that: because the intention is to confer a discretion, so it’s a word that fits what we’re trying to confer here.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Going further down to subclause 10(c), it states: “Establish terms and conditions.” There is no indication, after terms and conditions, whether that’s inclusive or whether that’s exhaustive.

The first thing I would like clarification on is: is it the plain meaning of “terms and conditions,” and secondly, if so, is this an exhaustive list? Could it be terms, conditions, items, or is it an inclusive list?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m going to take a step back and talk about when the legislative drafters decide to define something or decide not to, because I think it’s helpful in this discussion.

When there is a defined term in a piece of legislation, it’s because it has a particular, unique meaning that sets it apart from its ordinary meaning, and it’s necessary to define it. When the member is asking the questions about these particular terms…. They’re determined by the legislative drafters that are very commonly drafting legislation, obviously, because it’s a high job, to be a legislative drafter for a province.

The terms that are not defined, like “terms and conditions,” take on their ordinary meaning. This one is also very commonly used. I think we had 34 hits in legislation. It’s a common thing to say and very applicable, so it’s meant to mean terms and conditions.

Under the Lieutenant Governor in Council, cabinet can decide what the terms and conditions are of the specific items or whatever is intended, what they see fit in that procurement directive.

Steve Kooner: I will jump next to subclause (e), because I believe (d)…. The Attorney General did provide an explanation for “provide for exemptions.” I believe the Attorney General provided an explanation to my colleague, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, earlier.

Subclause (e) says “establish or define classes,” and then it goes on to have these categories of “government procurement entities, procurements, goods, services, circumstances, matters or other things.”

In terms of establish or define, can the Attorney General please provide the explanation or the interpretation on these two words, whether that’s ordinary meaning or if they are legal definitions? How is one to use this in reference to this particular clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it is just the ordinary meanings of the terms.

Steve Kooner: Then the next word or term that could be subject to interpretation…. After “establish or define” comes the word “classes,” and then classes has categories after that.

Now, for classes, is that a particular legal definition, or is that an ordinary definition? Could other words just be substituted for “classes,” or is that a particular word that’s usually used in similar legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, it’s not defined. It’s ordinary meaning, but it’s also commonly used in legislation. It means as you would think it would mean, which is like a grouping of things — certain things together.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that explanation.

Going on to clause (f), it says: “Make different directives in relation to different ministries, government procurement entities, procurements, goods, services, circumstances, matters or other things, or different classes of government procurement entities, procurements, goods, services, circumstances, matters or other things.” As you can see, in this particular clause, the word “different” is used many different times in different parts of this phrase.

[4:50 p.m.]

Why was the word different used? Was there supposed to be a specific legal meaning there? Is that just an ordinary meaning, or is that just a word that’s used to distinguish different categories or items that are commonly used in similar legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s ordinary meaning, as it’s not defined. I think that the clarity of these provisions…. I think it’s good to note that legally speaking, you don’t have the authority to discriminate between treating things differently or classes differently unless you have the authority in legislation, so this gives the legislative authority to do so.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that explanation. I guess that shows why it’s important to go through these clauses and words, because at times there could be ordinary meanings, and at times there could be some legal meanings. As the Attorney General just mentioned, there’s a legal meaning to this particular word, and it could have significance in terms of how you interpret it and how people or how entities are given certain rights under this particular legislation.

Then going further, after talking about “make different directives in relation to different ministries, government procurement entities, procurements, goods, services, circumstances, matters or other things, or different classes of government procurement entities, procurements, goods, services, circumstances, matters or other things….” Now, “other things” is very, very vague. Everything else is very descriptive, and then “other things” ends up being very, very vague.

Is the meaning of other things similar to these items mentioned, or does that mean that essentially just refers to how you can insert whatever you think of in that particular box?

Hon. Niki Sharma: With the rules of a statutory interpretation, it would be read together with the clause that it sits itself in. “Other things” is intentionally left broad so it can be all-inclusive of things that might be in the same manner of things described but not included in the list.

Steve Kooner: If it could have included anything, it doesn’t have to be similar to any of these boxes. Could the directive have been even more clear by not describing any of these items and leaving it open and just saying “other things” or “other items”? Could it not have done that? Why go through this detailed list if you can just put anything in the words other things?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Remember, going back to a couple questions ago where I said the reasons that you provide these powers in legislation is that if you are going to discriminate between things, you need the legal authority to do so. That is the purpose for the construction of these two provisions: to provide that ability to have categories.

The other things. As I mentioned in the previous answer, the way you read legislation is by “other things” being read in the context of all the other items listed. Actually, it brings more clarity to have a list rather than just say other things, and it possibly would be impermissible if you just included things in there without giving the clear discretion to discriminate.

Steve Kooner: I have a few more questions. We earlier talked about the subclause 10(2) here that reads: “A directive issued on or before June 30, 2025 under this Part may be retroactive to February 1, 2025 or a later date and, if made retroactive, is deemed to have been issued on the specified date.”

[4:55 p.m.]

Now, there was some discussion between my colleague, the member for Kelowna-Mission, and the Attorney General, but there were some questions related to this provision that were left unanswered that I want to ask questions on. Those will be my follow-up questions.

I see the date here is February 1, 2025, but this bill is titled Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act. Basically, in response to that, you’re looking at tariffs. The first indication of tariffs that we actually saw was on March 4, 2025. When we’re looking at this legislation, and it’s referring to retroactivity to February 1, 2025, one gets to wonder: why have this legislation go all the way back to February 1 when the tariffs issue didn’t start until March 4, 2025?

The question. Why the date February 1, 2025, for retroactivity rather than, say, March 4, 2025, or later?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I know it’s hard for all of us to keep track of all the changing actions from the White House and the changing words every day, but if we cast our mind back to February 1, that was the day of the very first executive order, so that is the date that we pegged in this legislation.

Steve Kooner: I know some examples were…. Well, I didn’t hear any examples of the next question, so I’m going to ask the next question.

Can the Attorney General illustrate which examples of the types of directives that the government perceives this retroactivity legislation applying to? Examples, like real-life examples.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have talked about this previously, related to the fact that since February 1, when the tariffs were announced, there were purchasing directives, I think, in a show of solidarity of government reporting entities. Some of them made it to the public, that they were issuing or doing, to try to show their sense of solidarity and standing with our actions that Canada was taking to direct procurement and to do things that were responding to America.

We talked about some of those things that might have been contemplated with the member for Prince George–Mackenzie previously. Yeah, that was what we were contemplating when it comes to this.

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to say that the Attorney General already has certain directives in mind that will become retroactive after this bill passes?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, I don’t, because, again, this is an enabling bill. What would happen was it would be a decision, in this case by cabinet, that they would have to determine which ones. It may be made retroactive, and it confines it by the dates that are set out.

[5:00 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I get it. February 1 was when the first directive was put in place.

I asked for examples of where the directives might be applied, but are there actual examples of where certain businesses or procurement entities started changing the way they were doing business or the way they were taking actions right after the first indication of executive order, like the Attorney General said was stated on February 1?

Is the Attorney General aware of any sort of movement in entity directives and what they were doing that warrants this type of retroactivity, or is it just to give assurance to businesses that may have taken certain actions that they will be, in fact, covered and give them a sense of assurance? Maybe the Attorney General can elaborate.

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I’m sure the member knows, the Premier announced purchasing directives on February 3, and he can find that online, that were issued to 29 Crowns.

The definition of “government procurement entity” is broader than those 29 organizations, so we don’t know if all or any of those organizations have somehow stepped into the space of designing their purchasing rules. That would come out in the discussions that would happen once the enabling powers are here. That’s an example, which the member can find on February 3, that was online.

[5:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I just want to summarize the event.

The Attorney General had stated that on February 1, that was the first time an executive order came from the U.S. in regard to tariffs. Then followed by February 3, the Premier of this province made a statement about how there would be procurement directives. Then there were 29 particular organizations that were singled out. Is my understanding correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The one on February 3 that the Premier announced was with Crowns. It’s a narrower group than the government procurement entities that would be included in that bill. So yeah, that’s one of the ones that was made.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General is not aware if any of those 29 organizations actually changed their habits or changed their actions in regard to U.S. companies or U.S. services or U.S. goods, but this legislation is being retroactive to February 1, regardless, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to clarify what I said earlier.

First of all, my job is to put forward this enabling bill. The decisions of cabinet that come from this bill are not in my hands. That would be what’s made retroactive or not, because that would be a decision to be made under the powers that would be in the bill.

What has happened, and the member asked for an example, is the one that we talked about that was issued on February 3. What I was talking about when I said I wasn’t aware is that I don’t know of the government procurement entities that would be under the umbrella of the powers in this bill. So they’re included in the definition, but an individual decision that might be made under this to issue a procurement directive has not been made yet. That would be a future cabinet decision.

I don’t know if all of those government procurement entities here, if any of them have started to change their purchasing policies in response to the tariffs. That would be something that would have to be determined once you contemplate whether or not you would use the retroactive powers.

Is there a government procurement entity that is showing up and saying: “Hey, since February 1, we’ve done this”? Then there would have to be an analysis to say: “Is this something that we would say is in the nature of a procurement directive, that we would offer the type of retroactivity that this clause provides?”

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to say that it’s the government’s position that certain procurement entities may have changed their position after hearing the Premier’s response on February 3, in response to the U.S. executive order on February 1? Is that fair to say that these procurement entities could have changed some of their actions and how they were operating in regard to isolating vendors from, say, the U.S.?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, I have no reason to believe that they’re not complying with that purchasing directive that the Premier made on February 3. I think there has been a lot of solidarity out there, as we talked before about — a lot of entities, private and public, that are working on designing their procurement policies in a way to respond to the tariffs.

I don’t come here with a full knowledge of every decision that government reporting entity or those Crowns has made since February 3.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General mentioned the word “solidarity,” that there has been a lot of solidarity. What does the Attorney General mean by that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: What I mean by that is since February 1, there has been a lot of solidarity in Canadians and British Columbians working together to respond to the tariff threats. That has included, and I’m certain the member has seen, a whole bunch of buy B.C., buy Canada campaigns that have been showing up in grocery stores, showing up in local businesses, showing up in many places that have shown individual decisions of organizations, corporations and small businesses to direct their purchasing or fill their shelves with things that are B.C. or Canadian or exclude America.

That’s the level of solidarity that’s been out there since February 1.

Steve Kooner: Right now we’re dealing with this legislation. It has not passed, and the Attorney General said that some organizations may have changed their actions. Is that not maybe putting them in a position that they may face liability as a result of changing their actions, when this bill has not passed yet?

Hon. Niki Sharma: You’ve identified precisely the reason for 2.

It’s that we want to make sure that organizations that have acted in a way in accordance with February 3, what the Premier announced publicly and anything that we think looks like…. That would be the assessment that would have to be made: it looks like a procurement directive that would actually do what we want them to do, which is to stimulate the economy, support local businesses, do all those things. We would offer them that protection in case they incurred….

I think we talked in detail with clause 8 and 9 what the limits of that are and what it’s meant to protect, but we would offer that type of protection.

Steve Kooner: The Premier made a response declaration back on February 3. There are certain organizations that may have taken certain actions that may have exposed them to liability, and they never had any sort of legislative protection at the time.

Does the Attorney General think that was a reasonable decision on the part of the Premier of making that response when that was going to expose certain organizations to liability when they didn’t have legislation to actually protect them?

The Chair: A reminder that the question should please remain relevant to clause 10.

Does the member have another question?

Steve Kooner: I believe that question…. I haven’t had an answer to that question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for this bill and the fast-moving response that we are doing, and it would be faster if we could get through the committee debate and get this bill into royal assent as quickly as possible, is for us to have…. The legislative framework that we talked about is part of designing procurement in a way that responds and has all those protections in it.

It is exactly the reason that we have this clause in here about retroactivity until February 1. It’s that we want to make sure that the solidarity that was put into place helps people know that there is a protection available for the actions they took. Although we talked in length, I think, over the last few days, about all of the ways the procurement and decisions about purchasing have a legal framework that’s pretty intense around protections, so we don’t expect there’s…. We talked about that incurring of liability as a result of acting on that.

With that, I’ll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.