First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, April 17, 2025

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 46

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Members’ Statements

Richard and Betty Shum

Gavin Dew

Education Week and Education System in B.C.

Stephanie Higginson

Easter

Korky Neufeld

Castlegar and District Chamber of Commerce

Steve Morissette

Impact of Artificial Intelligence

Jeremy Valeriote

Naad Arts Centre

Jessie Sunner

Oral Questions

Government Action on Police Health and Safety and Funding to Drug User Organizations

Elenore Sturko

Hon. Garry Begg

Comments by City Councillor and Government Support for Police Officers

Bruce Banman

Hon. Garry Begg

Sexual Assault Policy and Support for Survivors

Rob Botterell

Hon. Niki Sharma

Non-Disclosure Agreements

Rob Botterell

Hon. Niki Sharma

Government Policies on Gender Identity and Gender Transition

Tara Armstrong

Hon. Niki Sharma

Cellular Service Reliability and Access to Emergency Services in Rural and Remote

Communities

Rosalyn Bird

Hon. George Chow

Hon. Josie Osborne

Trans Mountain Pipeline and Trade Diversification

Gavin Dew

Hon. Adrian Dix

Hon. Rick Glumac

Health Ministry Consultant Contract and Reporting

Anna Kindy

Hon. Josie Osborne

Inclusion and Services for Children with Complex Care Needs

Claire Rattée

Hon. Lisa Beare

Child Care Plan and Access to Services

Lorne Doerkson

Hon. Lisa Beare

Tabling Documents

Elections B.C. report of the Chief Electoral Officer, statement of votes, 43rd provincial

general election October 19, 2024

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

Sheldon Clare

Scott McInnis

Macklin McCall

Personal Statements

Consideration of Comments Made in the House

Susie Chant

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Gavin Dew

Hon. Niki Sharma

Thursday, April 17, 2025

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Susie Chant.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix : This afternoon members on all sides of the House will come together to recognize

and commemorate the Armenian Genocide. As members will know, this Legislature passed

a motion unanimously in 2006 to recognize the Armenian Genocide as a crime against

humanity.

I wanted to introduce some of the members. We’ll be joined by some 50 members of the

Armenian community at noon in the Hall of Honour. I invite members to hear members

from all sides of the House recognize this occasion.

I want to introduce some of the people who will be here to speak: Vanessa Agopian

from the Armenian National Committee of Canada; Kate Tairyan, the senior lecturer

at Simon Fraser University.

And we’ll have musical performers: the Very Reverend Father Vartan Tashjian; Manush

Harutyunyan, an opera singer visiting from Armenia; and Lori Kullahian, a concert

pianist and second-year UBC student.

[10:05 a.m.]

I want to acknowledge the Armenian National Committee and the United Armenian Committee

of British Columbia for their efforts in again bringing this event to the Legislature.

I invite everyone to join us at noon today.

Bruce Banman : It was this year, I believe, or this election rather, where just over a thousand

MLAs have actually served in this House. So when one of the MLAs comes back to visit,

I think it is worthy of an introduction.

Would this House please welcome and give a huge round of applause to former MLA….

Oh my god….

[Laughter.]

Interjections.

Bruce Banman : Jane Thornthwaite, yes, yes. Would you please give her a huge round of applause.

Every now and again, the connection between my brain and my mouth isn’t in gear. Just

ask my wife.

Paul Choi : I’m very excited today to have my friends join us from OKTA. There are about ten

of them. I won’t go over all their names, but it’s led by president Chae-Ho Lim.

World Federation of Overseas Korean Traders Association is an international organization

with over 7,000 Korean businesses, mostly made up of local Korean Canadians who promote

international trade.

Their

chapter here in Vancouver is one of 151 chapters around the world formed to

provide economic well-being to the local community and an effective economic engine

that moves the local Canadian economy forward, and it will be a great partner in diversifying

our economy and strengthening our trade relationship with Korea.

Please, if I can ask the House to join me to make them feel really welcome.

Sheldon Clare : I was out for a walk this morning, and I had the pleasure of running into the member

for Esquimalt-Colwood and meeting her darling little girl Josephine.

I just wanted to draw the House’s attention to the fact that Josephine is joining

us here this morning. I’m sure the applause isn’t going to bother her, because she

is a very robust young lady.

I hope we can all make her very welcome.

Hon. Anne Kang : I would like to welcome Ava Cornell, Nicholas Mitchell and Anthony Preston, who are

in the gallery today. They are part of UBC’s medical students, here for the provincial

day of action. I had an amazing conversation this morning about their research on

youth in care and recommendations that they have made to government. I thank them

so much for their advocacy.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’m pleased to introduce representatives from the Mechanical Contractors Association

of British Columbia. The association plays a vital role in our province’s construction

industry, advocating for the interests of mechanical contractors, who are essential

to building and maintaining the infrastructure that supports our community. This association

has been actively engaged in promoting initiatives such as addressing the skilled-trades

shortages through support for apprentice programs.

As well, they will be giving out to everybody copies of a very special book called

Susie’s Shed , which was written to engage younger generations and help debunk the myth that girls

don’t build.

Please make them feel welcome today.

Gavin Dew : I know that for many of us, we all miss our families when we’re here in this place,

so I’m very excited to have my family here with me today — my beautiful wife, Erin;

my daughter, Abigail; my son, Evan; my father-in-law, Richard; my mother-in-law, Betty;

and our nanny, Dina, are with us today.

I love you.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I am really honoured today to give a huge shout-out to Havana Gibson. She is a legislative

assistant. She worked with me for a few years, and today is her last day working for

us here in the Legislature. She is off to go back to the Bahamas, where she has a

really exciting job opportunity awaiting her. I know she’s excited to be back with

her family.

[10:10 a.m.]

I know many of us worked with her, worked with Havana. She was detail-oriented, she

was smart, she was kind, and she was always willing to step in to help.

Havana, thank you so much for everything that you have done for us in this place,

and we all wish you nothing but the best.

Steve Kooner : We’re going to have some students here from Henry James Cambie Secondary School,

which is in my constituency. It’s part of school district 38 in Richmond. My understanding

is that they have not arrived yet because they got delayed on the ferry, but they

will be here soon.

Will this House please give them a deep welcome.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I’d like to take a moment to recognize two people that mean an incredible deal to

me. I’m emotional just speaking of them.

Steven and Gwen Point are going to be celebrating 53 years of marriage this weekend.

We get some family time together.

I just want to take a moment in this House to recognize a joining of two hearts that

mean a lot to me.

Steve Morissette : This week just keeps getting better for the Kootenay-Monashee and the Legislature.

It is not often I get visitors from Kootenay-Monashee, and this week, two sets. Today

it is my pleasure to introduce two friends from the beautiful, progressive city of

Castlegar, home of my constituency office.

Please join me in welcoming the wonderful team of Maria McFaddin and CAO Chris Barlow

in the gallery today.

Amelia Boultbee : Someone as illustrious as Jane Thornthwaite deserves another, more fulsome introduction,

so I’m very proud to introduce my constituent, my mentor and my friend Jane Thornthwaite,

who was the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour from 2009 to 2020.

She had many roles over the years that focused on support and advocacy for mental

health, addictions, children and youth and animal advocacy. She was often really leading

the charge on those fronts. She fulfilled these roles and many more.

All of her accomplishments can be found in her recently published book, Unfinished Business: Notes from the Memoir of a Recovering Politician , which is a great book that I’ve learned a lot from. If I had read it much earlier,

I would have known a lot more going into this role. I highly recommend the book.

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

Nina Krieger : Joining us today are very special guests — my father, Kit Krieger, and our dear family

friends who I have also known for my entire life, Ros and Michael Crommelin. At a

time when fostering relationships with partners beyond our southern neighbour is top

of mind, Ros and Mike are beacons of the close ties between Canada and Australia.

Michael first came to Canada in 1971 as a graduate student at UBC’s Allard School

of Law, and has the unique designation of being its first PhD graduate. He went on

to become the dean of the Melbourne Law School and has had many visiting professorships

at UBC.

Ros is a beloved former French teacher, and they are both really the finest people

I know.

Welcome.

I would also like to extend a happy belated birthday to my dad.

I missed celebrating with you yesterday, and I love you very, very much.

Peter Milobar : Last night in Kamloops, the city council had their exceptional citizen awards ceremony,

and there were a lot of great people that were recognized. But I do want to take a

moment to single one person out.

She is one of my two constituency assistants, Julie Dormer, who was recognized for

her years of selfless giving back to the Kamloops community — no surprise. Julie’s

late father, John, was a former mayor of Kamloops and no doubt instilled that sense

of community in Julie as well.

We are very fortunate, all of us, to have such great constituency assistants. It’s

even better when one gets recognized by the city they love so dearly, the way Julie

was last night.

Will the House please help me in congratulating Julie and, indeed, everyone that was

recognized last night for their exemplary service to the city of Kamloops over the

years.

[10:15 a.m.]

Misty Van Popta : Like the Opposition House Leader, my parents are also celebrating an anniversary

this weekend — 55 years, something to be celebrated.

I’d like to just publicly thank them for modelling love and grit and determination

and a lot of humour in our home.

If the House would just help congratulate them.

Amshen / Joan Phillip : Today I’d like to introduce the United Way of British Columbia. They’re an organization

that supports the development of healthy, caring and inclusive communities by strengthening

vital connections that support people in need. Serving over four million people, they

focus on urgent response, children and youth, seniors, poverty, mental health and

food security.

Particularly, Andrew Callicum: welcome.

The Speaker : Member for Esquimalt-Colwood and the baby.

Darlene Rotchford : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I actually have two, so I’m going to start with one who’s

not the baby, who is watching but not here.

To my husband, Joey Rotchford: tomorrow is actually our four-year wedding anniversary.

We actually had our first dance — don’t tell security — our first champagne at the

Leg., the stairs, during COVID, so it’s very humbling to stand here today in front

of you all and have the privilege of him watching this congratulations.

So to Joey, my biggest cheerleader, thank you for everything you do.

An amazing father, amazing military-serving member, and I can’t say enough good about

that.

Now on to the next, more important, introduction — sorry, Honey. I would like to formally

introduce everyone to Josephine Catherine Ellen Rotchford. It has been a pleasure

carrying her during my time so far here.

To everyone in the House who has been so kind in checking in and to everyone since

she has been here who has constantly asked when she is going to come…. To everyone

in this House, please give me a warm welcome to introduce baby Jo.

[Applause.]

Members’ Statements

Richard and Betty Shum

Gavin Dew : I rise today to honour two British Columbians who exemplify the promise of Canada

— my in-laws, Richard and Betty Shum.

Richard arrived in Vancouver from Hong Kong in 1971 with just $500 to his name, money

that didn’t transfer, he faced the challenge of starting over. He enrolled in night

school, apprenticed in a dental clinic and delivered pizzas to make ends meet and

send money home.

Through hard work and perseverance, he became a registered denturist and opened a

practice on Main Street in Vancouver that still serves patients to this day. He sponsored

his family of six to join him in Canada. In 1979, he bought a home in East Vancouver

and married Betty.

Betty’s family history traces back to the early Chinese immigrants who paid the head

tax and persevered through immense hardship in this province. Her grandparents worked

tirelessly to bring the next generation to North America, eventually settling in Alberta

and British Columbia.

After growing up working in the family restaurant and picking berries in Richmond,

Betty earned her nursing diploma at Langara College, raised a family, worked as an

interpreter for the RCMP and ran several small businesses, including a vegetarian

restaurant and a spa with my wife, Erin.

Today Richard and Betty are retired, proud grandparents and grateful Canadians who

continue to give back in quiet and meaningful ways, including as a crucial part of

the support network that makes it possible for me to be in this place….

[10:20 a.m.]

The story of Richard and Betty Shum and their children and grandchildren is a reminder

that the Canadian promise is alive and well, and that the contributions of immigrants

continue to shape this province for the better.

As Richard likes to say, especially after a glass or two of B.C. wine: “We are in

Canada. Life is good.”

[Applause.]

The Speaker : Good introduction, but no unparliamentary words are allowed in this House.

Education Week and

Education System in B.C.

Stephanie Higginson : Next week is Education Week. It’s an opportunity to celebrate the hard work and achievements

of students throughout British Columbia and recognize the dedication of the teachers,

support staff, school administrators and trustees who make our education system one

of the best in the world.

How do I know B.C. has one of the best education systems in the world? Because the

evidence and the data tells us so. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development, B.C. is the top scoring education system in Canada and in the top

5 percent in the world.

The OECD runs the program for international student assessment. So 81 countries and

620,000 randomly selected 15-year-old students from around the world participate in

PISA. In Canada, ten provinces and 23,000 students participated in the last round

of PISA.

These results show that not only is B.C. the best in Canada but B.C. students continue

to perform among the best in the world in math, science and reading. B.C. was in the

top ten in the world in math, second in the world in reading and top five in the world

in science.

As a parent of two school-aged children, I know that schools look and feel differently

than when all of us went to school. That’s because the world is different than when

we graduated. In their short time, my kids have lived through a pandemic, major climate

events and, now, global economic warfare. These are rapidly changing times, and B.C.’s

education system is also changing to make sure that today’s students are prepared

to tackle today’s problems.

While we have world-class results, we know there is still hard work to do, and we

will keep doing that work for B.C. students. I extend my sincere gratitude to everyone

who dedicates their time and energy to making British Columbia’s education system

strong and inclusive.

Your efforts empower students and help build a brighter future for all of British

Columbia.

Easter

Korky Neufeld : Central to the Christian season of Easter is Good Friday, which is remembered tomorrow,

April 18, followed by Resurrection Sunday. This is a religious celebration with a

rich spiritual history that has shaped cultures and communities around the world for

centuries.

Our forefathers founded and dedicated our country to hope, provided by the God of

the universe and his son, Jesus. Easter is the most significant season in the Christian

calendar. The lead-up to Easter is marked by Lent, a 40-day reflection and self-discipline

and, for some, fasting. Then comes Good Friday, which is a solemn day marking the

crucifixion of Jesus.

On this day, we remember how Jesus willingly took on the weight of humanity’s sin,

suffering death on a cross. Good Friday is a day of reflection — of sorrow, yes, but

also of deep, deep gratitude, as in that moment of darkness, God’s love shone brightest.

Jesus laid down his life so that we could be forgiven and restored to a relationship

with God. The Bible says that we know that Jesus, being raised from the dead, will

never die again. Death no longer has dominion over him.

After the sorrow and reflection of Good Friday comes Easter Sunday, which celebrates

the resurrection of Jesus. This is the ultimate declaration of hope. It tells us that

no matter how dark the night, morning is coming. No matter how heavy the burden, there

is victory in his name. He is alive, and because he lives, we too can have eternal

life.

It’s a time of joy and celebration for the followers of Jesus, with greetings of “He

is risen,” with responses: “He is risen, indeed.” This Easter season then continues

for 50 days, ending with a day called Pentecost.

The Easter season symbolizes hope, renewal and the truth that life and love are stronger

than death. Even for those who don’t practise Christianity, Easter invites reflection

on universal themes such as renewal, resilience and the arrival of new beginnings

after difficult seasons.

[10:25 a.m.]

It’s a reminder that transformation, both personal and communal, is always possible.

He has risen. He has risen, indeed.

I wish everyone a happy Easter.

Castlegar and District

Chamber of Commerce

Steve Morissette : Castlegar is a good example of a small rural community getting things done. Today

it is my pleasure to highlight the work of the Castlegar and District Chamber of Commerce.

Chambers of commerce throughout British Columbia do a lot of the heavy work in support

of B.C.’s lifeblood: small business. The Castlegar and District chamber has stepped

up, above and beyond, to build a beautiful multi-use facility, an $8.7 million chamber

building built with locally sourced mass timber from Kalesnikoff mass timber to serve

the community as the new Castlegar Confluence building. This is a huge undertaking

in a small community.

The Confluence will serve many local economic development needs. It is a chamber of

commerce building, visitor centre and a multi-use building for the community which

has incorporated several offices available for rental, both long- and short-term,

which will support many needs, including serving as a small business incubator. The

Confluence also has a flexible multi-use meeting space that can be expanded or contracted

as needed for many types of community and regional meetings.

The vision and planning put in to create this magnificent building by the chamber

executive director, Tammy Verigin-Burk, and the chamber board shows in the product.

They worked hard to include the community and had buy-in by local business and industry

with significant sponsorships. The Castlegar Confluence building is something the

community is very proud of and a model that shows there are no limits to what can

be accomplished in rural British Columbia.

Congratulations to Tammy and the board for the foresight and courage to see their

goal realized. Well done.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence

Jeremy Valeriote : In my heart, I’m an optimist, so I take no joy in standing up to be a doomsayer.

However, British Columbia faces a threat that doesn’t play by the rules, a threat

that will have an unknown impact on our economy, our environment and our sovereignty.

I’m not talking about the U.S. President, and amazingly, I’m not talking about climate

change either. What I’m talking about is generative artificial intelligence, AI.

AI can analyze massive data sets in milliseconds, and it has already led to huge advances

in science, health care and other industries. But if the story of AI advancements

was a movie, it wouldn’t be a rom-com. As we’ve learned during Creative Industries

Week, AI presents an outsized risk to the livelihood of Canadian performers and thus

Canadian culture.

Performers deserve consent, compensation and control over the use of their likeness,

but our province has no laws to protect them from the theft and misuse of their work.

Jobs are at risk, and in the Trump era, when our independence is under siege, it’s

more important than ever to protect the jobs and culture of Hollywood North. From

AI to child labour laws to federal funding fairness, there’s more we can do to make

our creative industries resilient, ethical and innovative.

Of course, the threat from AI goes beyond creative industries, putting serious pressure

on our environment. A single ChatGPT request consumes ten times the electricity of

a Google search. Writing a 100-word email in ChatGPT consumes 500 millilitres of water.

AI needs guardrails for our creative industries, our society, our economy and our

environment because we want to keep apocalyptic robot takeovers on the silver screen

and not in real life.

Naad Arts Centre

Jessie Sunner : I rise today to recognize one of the true cultural treasures in my community, the

Naad Arts Centre. Since 2006, Naad Arts has been a place where tradition meets innovation

and the wisdom of the past meets the creativity of the future.

Led by the incredibly talented tabla maestro Amarjeet Singh, Naad Arts offers instruction

in everything from Indian classical vocals to tabla, sarangi, kathak and even Western

instruments like guitar and piano. It teaches more than just music. It’s a sanctuary

for artistry, discipline and cultural preservation.

[10:30 a.m.]

Last month I had the privilege of attending Rhythmic Remembrance , one of Naad’s three-part spring festival known as Vasantotsav. Held at the Surrey

Arts Centre, it was more than a show; it was a spiritual experience for so many of

us in the room. The energy was something you could feel in your chest. It was healing.

It was powerful. It was deeply moving.

The coming together of Indian classical and western musical traditions made the evening

incredibly special. The fusion of instruments and styles didn’t just sound beautiful.

They told a story of what’s possible when cultures meet in harmony. It was a reminder

that art can transcend language, geography and even time.

My favourite part of the evening was watching young artists, trained locally, take

the stage with such confidence and grace. It was truly inspiring. These students are

not only learning ragas and rhythm; they’re learning discipline, cultural identity

and artistic expression. The evening was a beautiful reminder of how art can awaken

something in all of us and leave us feeling more connected and more alive.

We’re fortunate to have the Naad Arts Centre in our community. Let’s continue to support

spaces like this. They uplift our youth, preserve our culture and bring soul to our

communities for generations to come.

Oral Questions

Government Action on

Police Health and Safety and

Funding to Drug User Organizations

Elenore Sturko : This week we learned that the Vancouver police are investigating a plot to kill a

police officer on the Downtown Eastside. An internal email reported in the media stated:

“An unknown group of young men were considering a plan to kill a police officer.”

This threat is coming after a series of serious attacks on VPD officers — a pair of

officers set on fire and another officer slashed with an edged weapon. This week members

of the B.C. Police Association came to Victoria, and they asked for support for seven

priorities related to health, wellness and the safety of their members.

Will the Premier stand up today and commit to following through on all seven of those

priorities?

Hon. Garry Begg : Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I myself met with the group that

you met with today. I met with them yesterday.

One of the principal concerns is the protection of all of the police community in

all of the provinces in Canada. We had a very candid discussion. We talked about the

danger that they face every day as men and women who put on the uniform and go out

in the community. It is important that their work and their lives be cherished, and

we will do that. We committed to that, and we committed to that moving forward.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Elenore Sturko : The minister made it clear that this government doesn’t intend to support the union

with their asks and their seven commitments. The official opposition, however, has

committed to supporting police on all seven of those recommendations. It’s possible

that the Downtown Eastside has become the most dangerous neighbourhood for police

to patrol in the entire province.

This Premier is paying organizations in that same area who stoke anti-police sentiments

and push the Premier’s pro-drug agenda. Police lives are under direct threat in the

Downtown Eastside. Our police need a government that’s going to have their backs and

take a stand against threats to their lives.

Will the Premier stand in this House and commit to stop funding radical pro-drug organizations

which undermine law enforcement?

Hon. Garry Begg : To the member opposite, she makes a lot of noise but not a lot of sense.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Garry Begg : It is important that we recognize the value of policing in this society. I’ve said

that. I’ve repeated that. I’ve told you I met with the group to which you refer.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Through the Chair, Minister.

Members.

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg : We didn’t talk about anti-police. We talked about police — which is something you

should talk about.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Garry Begg : What we committed, what I committed to them was that they have our full support all

across the province. In Vancouver, which is having problems now, and Kelowna, which

has problems, all across the province, this government is committed to fulfilling

our obligation to provide the police the tools they need to do their job. I and we

will continue to do it.

Comments by City Councillor

and Government Support

for Police Officers

Bruce Banman : Last week we called on the Premier to join us and the Jewish community in condemning

antisemitic comments made by recently elected Vancouver councillor Sean Orr. Instead

of standing up in this chamber and doing just that, this Premier had his MLAs dodge

the question for him.

This week the Vancouver Police Union is calling out Sean Orr for saying such despicable

things as: “All pigs must die,” “Cops aren’t people,” “The cops are violent bums,”

and “The VPD are murderers.” Now, this Premier…. After a career spent undermining

law enforcement and overseeing the degradation of law and order in B.C., I don’t expect

this NDP Premier to have the courage to stand up. But nevertheless, I will ask.

What actions will be taken by this Premier to ensure that the concerns of police members,

of police unions, of family of police officers are addressed, and will he condemn

Sean Orr’s nasty, filthy comments?

Hon. Garry Begg : The comments of Sean Orr are of Sean Orr. He doesn’t represent anything that we believe

in. We, on this side of the House, believe fervently that free speech is important.

He will face the electorate. He will face the consequences. Nothing that we can do

is going to make it better.

But to condemn him unequivocally, we don’t like what he said. We don’t encourage him

to continue it. This is a choice that he made. We condemn it, and we stand by our

condemnation.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Bruce Banman : I think that most British Columbians would expect their Premier to stand up and condemn

comments like “All pigs must die” and “Cops aren’t people.” It’s not a huge ask.

Last week we saw cops lit on fire by criminals, and this week we have heard about

a plot to murder law enforcement officers to ensure that they don’t make it home to

their families. It seems like this government is unwilling to do the right thing,

even when it is blatantly obvious.

Can the Solicitor General please explain, based on his comments a moment ago, not

only to me but to the police unions and the families who he works with, how he’s able

to participate in an NDP party that supports municipal politicians, who campaigns

with municipal politicians who say things like “All cops are bastards”?

Hon. Garry Begg : It is always important that we defend the police. I don’t know how I can make it

clearer to you that that’s what we do every day.

Interjections.

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

Shhh.

Hon. Garry Begg : We respect…. We provide the police with the tools that they need to do their job.

I meet with them regularly. I know that they know….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Garry Begg : Yesterday I had the privilege of announcing the presence of the commissioner of the

RCMP in the House. I was a very dedicated Mountie. My role with the police is to ensure

that they have the tools to do the job and to ensure that they can go out there and

do the job.

[10:40 a.m.]

I cannot pass other than criticism on Mr. Orr, and I’ve done that. Nothing more I

can do about that.

For your question about the police, we protect the police. I expect this government,

all sides of the House, to be as supportive of the police as I am.

Sexual Assault Policy

and Support for Survivors

Rob Botterell : I’d first like the House to be aware that I will be speaking about sexual assault

and gender-based violence.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Across the province, a patchwork of policies

and organizations supports survivors, but more work is needed.

B.C. has made good strides in recent decades, but there are still gaps in supports

for survivors. Our health, justice and social services should continue to grow. We

can do better, not just to address harms related to sexual assault but to prevent

that harm altogether.

To the Premier: will your government create a provincial sexual assault policy?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I want to thank the member for his very important question.

As a government, we’ve been investing in front-line services like sexual assault centres,

making sure we have a gender-based violence action plan that is reaching across government

to respond to this very horrific crime and assault on people.

It’s something that as Attorney General I take so seriously that I’ve asked Dr. Stanton

to do an independent review of our justice system, every level of our justice system,

to understand why it is that this is such an underreported crime. Why is it that people

that face such atrocious violence against them don’t feel comfortable coming forward

to the justice system?

Based on that report, I will be taking actions to make sure that our justice system

responds better to this type of violence, and I look forward to reporting that to

the public and this House.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Non-Disclosure Agreements

Rob Botterell : The misuse of non-disclosure agreements continues to allow instances of harm to be

swept under the rug. Initially designed to prohibit the sharing of trade secrets,

NDAs, as they’re called, have become tools to silence victims of workplace discrimination

and harassment, including sexual harassment, racism and ableism.

The misuse of NDAs silences and isolates those who have been wronged. The B.C. Green

caucus has previously introduced legislation to address this misuse, and this government

has committed to doing the same.

To the Attorney General, what is the timeline for introducing legislation to ban the

misuse of non-disclosure agreements?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I want to thank the member again for a very important question.

I think I’ve spoken in this House before about the use of NDAs and how they can be

important legal tools and they can be used inappropriately.

I agree with the member that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to bringing

clarity to the law there so it’s not misused to silence victims and to try to silence

the behaviour that we would all condemn in organizations. That’s why we’ve taken a

few actions. One is to strengthen our whistleblower protection laws to make sure that

if you are part of an organization and you want to disclose something that’s happening,

you are protected from that disclosure.

We’re also taking steps right now. My legal team is hard at work with the Uniform

Law Conference, thinking about what a model piece of legislation might be to make

sure that we can protect against the misuse of NDAs and only have them in our system

when they’re used appropriately and in the correct times.

That work is underway, and I expect that we will have policy answers either in the

fall or the spring of next year.

Government Policies on Gender

Identity and Gender Transition

Tara Armstrong : The U.K.’s top court just issued a historic ruling to keep men out of women’s bathrooms,

change rooms and prisons. All it had to do was acknowledge the biological reality

that a man is not a woman.

Can the Premier prove his own grip on reality here for us all today by answering the

same basic question: what is a woman?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : I find myself once again rising to respond to a question that I wish I didn’t have

to respond to.

I want to send a message to all queer, trans and two-spirit people in this province

that we stand with you and we see you. We on this side of the House are going to fight

for an inclusive society for all people — for all people.

We’re going to make sure that our laws and all of our policies respect and stand up

for the rights of all people. We’re going to keep doing that work in this House, and

I hope that we would have a majority of this House on side with that work.

Once again I just want to say that I am really sorry that we’re facing the type of

politics that’s pitting communities against each other, that’s creating division and

fear in this province. I strongly condemn that type of politics here in this House,

and I think we all need to.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Tara Armstrong : The member may deflect on what a woman is but perhaps will rise to answer my next

question about a man, a psychologist who reportedly works for the Ministry of Children

and Families.

This individual bragged about transitioning 1,000 children, half of whom were in government

care, and some as young as a mere three years old. The same person is on record coaching

kids to threaten suicide to access harmful and irreversible gender transition procedures.

So my next question is actually very simple. It really is just a yes or a no answer.

Will this Premier finally ban the brainwashing, sterilization and mutilation of our

precious children by these so-called medical professionals?

Hon. Niki Sharma : There can be no simple yes or no to the type of hate that was just raised in this

House right now, the type of hate that seeks to deny an identity of people and seeks

to create this cloud of fear and mistrust and misinformation about what that identity

is in this province. Again, I condemn it, and I hope the whole House would stand in

condemning that.

To trans people in this province: we see you, we support you, we will fight for your

equality, and we will fight for safe places for you to show up across this province.

Cellular Service Reliability and

Access to Emergency Services in

Rural and Remote Communities

Rosalyn Bird : Two days ago in McBride, when a fire burned for hours and destroyed a large structure,

911 cell service was unavailable. Residents sought out land lines.

What is this government doing to ensure that British Columbians have 24-7 access to

all 911 services in British Columbia?

Hon. George Chow : Thank you for the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. George Chow : Emergency services are important. And of course, we’ll make sure that is the case

for the entire province. We are ensuring that 911 services are available for all British

Columbians. We have call boxes on highways that we install for emergencies.

We also have done a lot of work in terms of the cellular service as well, even though

cellular service is not the responsibility of the provincial government. It’s under

the federal government, under the CRTC. We have devoted $90 million so far to encourage

service providers to provide cellular service on our highways and also in the community.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

[10:50 a.m.]

Rosalyn Bird : I’m glad we are encouraging that essential service.

Many feel that there are two British Columbias: one where ERs are open and all 911

services are available and call-outs are responded to; another where ERs are closed,

have long waits and 911 services are unreliable. Two days ago British Columbians in

my riding learned they live in the second B.C. They pay the same taxes as every British

Columbian.

My question: when will this government support rural, remote and Indigenous communities

and ensure they get the same standard of treatment as B.C. residents who live in multi-million-dollar

mansions in Point Grey?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and for raising the very important issues

around equity for people who live in the rural, remote and Indigenous communities

of this province.

As a resident of a rural community myself, a former mayor of a rural community, I

understand what it is like to be at the end of a highway where closures can happen,

where emergency rooms can close and services can be less than what people in urban

areas experience.

That’s why we are taking steps to increase access to health care services for rural

and remote residents. That’s why we are working so hard with communities and health

authorities to increase the number of doctors, nurses and other health care workers

who choose to live in these incredibly beautiful spaces in British Columbia.

We’re going to continue to fast track credentials for physicians and nurses coming

from other locations. We’re going to continue to incentivize people to move to these

places and build out the workforce, because people need to know that health care is

there for them when they need it, no matter what size of a community they live in.

Trans Mountain Pipeline

and Trade Diversification

Gavin Dew : The Minister of Energy lost an election in 2013 on his opposition to expanding the

Trans Mountain Pipeline to diversify away from the U.S. market. As Attorney General,

the Premier tried every tool in the toolbox to block it. Now there’s talk of expanding

the pipeline again.

Can the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions confirm whether he’s working with

all relevant authorities to expedite a second expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline

and the dredging of Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden tankers to take Team Canada

oil to diversified markets?

Hon. Adrian Dix : The TMX pipeline, of course, is a matter of considerable public debate over time,

but it’s built. It has been built with a massive investment of public dollars in our

country. It was built, I think, in the neighbourhood of $25 billion.

It’s my view that given that public investment, that private investment and the importance

of energy issues, we should use what we’ve built to the fullest possible extent. We

built it. We paid for it. We should use it.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Gavin Dew : The minister misspoke. The cost of the pipeline was $34 billion, and it was increased

by his government’s obstructionism.

Now we’re in the middle of a trade war, and the Minister of State for Trade hasn’t

risen once to defend this government’s record. But the numbers don’t lie.

The NDP government of the ’90s took the U.S. share of B.C.’s exports from 40 percent

up to 70 percent. By the time this NDP government took power in 2017, the B.C. Liberals

had driven exports to the U.S. back down to 52 percent. Over the last eight years,

there has been virtually no change.

Why should anyone believe this government is taking trade diversification seriously

when 35 years of evidence suggests otherwise?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. Rick Glumac : This member may not be aware, but a couple of years ago we initiated a trade diversification

strategy, and we’re working right now on expanding and enhancing that strategy. And

if we’re looking for results, you just need to look at the data between 2023 and 2024.

You look at exports going out to different countries. United Kingdom, exports from

B.C. are up. Germany, exports from B.C. are up. Taiwan, exports from B.C. are up.

South Korea, exports from B.C. are up. Australia, exports from B.C. are up.

We’re taking this diversification very seriously on this side of the House, and I

hope the member can recognize that.

Health Ministry Consultant

Contract and Reporting

Anna Kindy : While British Columbians are waiting 13 hours in ERs, struggling to find family doctors

and watching surgical backlogs grow, this government handed a $400,000 consulting

contract to one of their political insiders with no deadline, no scope and not even

a requirement for a written report.

As quoted in an

article by Rob Shaw on April 9, the minister said: “This isn’t a form

of a formal written report, so it’s not something that I intend to release publicly.”

To the Premier, how is this anything other than a blank cheque for a political ally

with, once again, little accountability and little meaningful engagement with the

front lines, where censorship is alive and well, all while patients across B.C. are

getting sicker waiting to be seen?

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

I think she might be a little bit confused because when she is citing from Rob Shaw’s

article, I am speaking about the update that I will get in the first six weeks of

the review that is taking place in PHSA. That’s a report that I will get. That’s not

a report of the entire review. I’ll be updating this House and the public as recommendations

come forward from the review.

But it’s important to understand why we are undertaking this review in the first place.

We know that administrative structures have grown. We know that British Columbians

expect every possible dollar to be spent on front-line services for British Columbians

in the health care that they deserve, need and expect in communities large and small,

no matter what their background is. Their access to our public, universal health care

system….

Undertaking a review of the PHSA helps us make sure that dollars are being maximized

for use on the front lines and that the health authority is operating as efficiently

and in as streamlined a way as possible. That’s the purpose of this review.

Yes, it’s going to take time. Results will come forward. The House will learn about

this, and we will see changes.

Inclusion and Services for

Children with Complex Care Needs

Claire Rattée : My question is not for the Minister of Health, but I will say that it’s unacceptable

that an insider is getting paid like this and that a report is not coming out to the

general public.

We asked about this in estimates, and we were not able to get any clear answers on

when we were actually going to see this report or when we were going to find out what

the findings were. This is very important, and it needs to be dealt with, and British

Columbians deserve to know what is going on within the health authorities.

This government loves to talk about inclusion, but Roman, a non-verbal child with

complex needs and the rare Angelman syndrome, has been excluded again and again from

his daycare in Terrace not because of his behaviour but because of the system’s failure

to support him.

His parents are exhausted, out of pocket and forced to pick him up early or keep him

home entirely, simply because there is no consistent, qualified support staff despite

his documented one-to-one care needs. Roman misses out on a normal childhood with

his peers, and his mother is unable to work.

What does inclusion mean to this NDP government if children like Roman are being left

out, sent home and treated like a burden?

Hon. Lisa Beare : I absolutely want to recognize that parents and families with children with complex

needs face complex situations here in our province. We know that they can face unique

challenges when accessing child care.

[11:00 a.m.]

It is so important that we provide the supports needed in the system to ensure that

kids like Roman are well supported in care. The member talked about training for staff

to ensure that we can provide those supports, and I want to let the member know that

we have programs to train providers on inclusive child care practices and policies.

We have ongoing online training, as well, for ECEs on inclusive child care practices,

so that they can augment education that they may have received in the past.

We want to help families and their children find child care with those needs and with

providers, by helping to develop those systems. I know more work needs to be done,

absolutely, in the system, but we are committed to doing that work.

Child Care Plan

and Access to Services

Lorne Doerkson : The government keeps insisting that the $10-a-day daycare rollout is on track, but

former supporters are now saying otherwise. Katrina Chen, former Minister of State

for Child Care, said: “This is not what the NDP promised in 2017, nor the plan recommitted

in 2020.”

If the government won’t listen to the opposition, will they at least listen to their

former NDP minister and admit their failure to delivering child care in this province?

Hon. Lisa Beare : I want to remind the member where we were before we formed government. I want the

member to remember that we had a patchwork system of boutique child care providers…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Lisa Beare : …with no coordination. I want to let the member know that there was a $14-a-day child

care plan in place…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, let her finish, please.

The minister will continue.

Hon. Lisa Beare : …that was cancelled by the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Lisa Beare : Look, I know the members across the way don’t want to recognize the record of the

Leader of the Opposition. I know it’s hard to realize….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, come to order, please, now.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. Lisa Beare : It’s really interesting when I look at the front bench: B.C. Liberal, B.C. Liberal,

B.C. Liberal, B.C. Liberal. Those are who are asking the questions. Remember that.

We have reduced child care fees for families all across this province from $47 a day,

which is what we inherited when we formed government, to now an average of $19 a day.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker : Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the Elections B.C. report, statement of

votes, for the 43rd provincial general election.

Orders of the Day

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

In

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

Steve Kooner : I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Steve Kooner : Earlier I spoke about H.J. Cambie Secondary School students. I believe they’ve now

arrived. They’re in the chamber, in the gallery somewhere.

I want to make sure that they get a warm welcome in the House here today.

They’re accompanied by their teacher, James Lo. There are approximately 40 grade 10

students here, and they’re from school district 38 in Richmond.

Please give them a really warm welcome.

[11:05 a.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures

Implementation Act, 2025

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this House back to order.

We are going to continue with comments on a motion introduced yesterday for Bill 5,

that motion for 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 be 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 (RSBC, 1996), to $22,462.”

On the amendment (continued) .

Sheldon Clare : Good morning. It is indeed a pleasure to rise again to speak on this most excellent

amendment.

As I stated yesterday, this amendment is rooted in fairness, compassion and in covenant

with the people of British Columbia. I believe, if I recall correctly, I was talking

about some of the wonderful things that citizens of this great province could do with

a $500 tax rebate, which this amendment would provide.

I think I was talking about mining — the ability to go out and literally scoop money

from the ground just by buying a few pieces of equipment that such a rebate could

provide. This sort of activity represents an investment in the economy, it helps to

circulate money in the economy, and it provides a little bit of ability to get out

and enjoy some of the beauty of this great province yet participate in its industrial

activities.

Recreational activities are also important to British Columbians — doing things like

climbing mountains, hiking. All of these things are able to be funded with a little

bit of money that this amendment would provide. People could enjoy engaging in recreational

activities, and with the cost of everything being up so much and the value of money

being so far down, this is certainly something that British Columbians would most

definitely benefit from.

Now, it is certainly the case that the Premier made a clear promise last year that

there would be a $1,000 rebate, a support that families could count on. That rebate

hasn’t arrived. That rebate is not going to come, and it was abandoned after the election.

I know that many people were disappointed. The people in Prince George–North Cariboo

were looking at this and thinking that, well, maybe there’d be something for them.

But much more eloquent speakers than I have talked about taxation policy in the past,

and I’d love to share some of those brilliant, eloquent speakers with you. Notwithstanding

that sometimes we have our little foibles with our neighbour to the south, I think

that these speakers would likewise be in favour of an amendment which helps people

at the lower end be protected from excess taxation.

Ronald Reagan once said: “You can’t be for big government, big taxes and big bureaucracy

and still be for the little guy.” I think that’s pretty true. How can you keep on

putting the burden of the debt and the deficit upon the taxpayer and expect that sometime

they won’t break?

Ronald Reagan further said that the government’s view of the economy could be summed

up in a few short phrases: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.

And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Is that the kind of province we want to live

in? I think not.

Now, my dear friends on the other side of the House are often in favour of providing

quotations from other speakers. I believe Margaret Thatcher was quoted in this House

the other day. I thought I would return with a quotation directly relevant to this

amendment, which is that “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out

of other people’s money.”

[11:10 a.m.]

Well, that is the problem with excess taxation: you eventually run out of other people’s

money, and the tax burden on the people of this province at this point in time is

excessive. This amendment is one that I do hope my dear friends on the other side

of the House will embrace as being good for the taxpayers of this province. It would

encourage the circulation of money within our economy, which would benefit everyone.

Dear Maggie Thatcher also said: “Be very wary of high taxes. Any government that has

high taxation is giving itself more powers and the people less.” I think the irony

of that quotation would not be lost on anyone in this House.

Let us turn to Canadian speakers on taxation for a moment. I may come back to some

of these other notables. John Diefenbaker said he was criticized for being too much

concerned with the average Canadian. “I can’t help that,” he said. “I am one of them.”

I, too, am one of those people concerned with the average British Columbian. The average

British Columbian is suffering under a tremendous tax burden, and the Leader of the

Opposition has introduced this excellent amendment, which would help to alleviate

that crushing burden faced by our taxpayers.

He further stated: “It is time to take the unrepentant tax master at Ottawa off the

backs of the Canadian people.” Can we not likewise take the tax burden off the backs

of ordinary British Columbians? Can we not do that? Can we not reach across this House

and embrace each other in trying to do the right thing for more people in this province?

Now, in doing this, I go back to my dad’s dear friend John Diefenbaker, whom he once

drove all the way from Prince George out to Valemount when he was a young lawyer —

Mr. Diefenbaker, that is, not my dad. My dad was a good old hardware store conservative.

He took the young lawyer, John Diefenbaker, out to Valemount to help defend a railway

worker who was being maligned by the railway after a terrible accident which took

the lives of soldiers on their way to fight in the Korean War. Diefenbaker successfully

defended that young man and went on making his name to become a very significant Prime

Minister of Canada and, thus, able to eloquently, like myself, advocate for tax relief.

We need to think very carefully about keeping taxes high and punishing ordinary British

Columbians. Winston Churchill, so oft-quoted by my dear friends on the other side

of the House, once said: “Taxes are an evil, a necessary evil but still an evil. And

the fewer of them we have, the better.”

From my own words, I would say: “The interests of the people and the interests of

the government are not necessarily congruent, but they certainly should be.”

I go back to Churchill. I’ve always enjoyed reading the words of that eloquent and

pithy writer, who once won the Nobel Prize not for peace but for literature. He said:

“For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is very like a man standing in

a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” Is that what we’re doing with

taxation policy in British Columbia? I would certainly hope not.

[11:15 a.m.]

It certainly feels like that to those people who are standing in food lines, who are

standing, making a decision about whether they’re going to buy food or pay for rent.

A little bit of relief would go a long way. The $500 would be a great addition as

a tax break, which this amendment would provide for. It would be entirely consistent

with the NDP’s own policy and the vote that we took yesterday.

Churchill again: “The great principle which this House ought to guard and cherish

is that when the tax collector comes to the private citizen and takes from him of

his wealth for the service of the public, the whole of that money taken shall go for

the purposes for which it is intended, and that no private interests, however powerfully

they may be organized and however eloquently advanced, shall thrust their dirty fingers

into the pie and take the profit for themselves.”

He said that in the House of Commons on the 8th of June, 1908, a very long time ago,

but those words ring true even to this date. People are heavily taxed; they’re overtaxed.

Canadians and British Columbians are some of the most taxed people in the world. It’s

taxing just to talk of it. Now, it simply cannot be the case that we can keep taxing

people to an extent where they will be expected to continually bear the burden.

Why can we not encourage more industry to be taking up shovels and digging the gold

out of the ground, pulling the liquid natural gas out of the ground, bringing forth

all of those resources which are so abundantly present in British Columbia that would

so quickly help to pay down our debt, eliminate deficits and allow us to pay for the

programs which we have all come to expect and find so dear?

Think about the words of Tommy Douglas. Some of my colleagues on the other side may

know about Tommy Douglas. “We are all in this world together, and the only test of

our character that matters is how we look after the least fortunate among us, how

we look after each other, not how we look after ourselves. That’s all that really

matters, I think,” said Tommy Douglas.

Winston Churchill, who, admittedly, did walk across the floor a couple of times —

perhaps that’s where the enjoyment of his quotations, by my dear colleagues and friends

on the other side of the House, comes from — also said: “This refusal to treat all

forms of wealth with equal deference, no matter what may have been the process by

which it was acquired, is a strenuous assertion in a practical form that there ought

to be a constant relation between acquired wealth and useful service previously rendered,

and that where no service, but rather disservice, is provided, then whenever possible,

the state should make a sensible difference in the taxes it is bound to impose.”

The taxpayer has had enough; the taxpayer is in need of help. I sincerely hope that

my dear, dear friends on the other side of the House would come together with my colleagues

and wonderful people on this side of the House and vote in favour of this amendment.

This amendment will do something remarkable for British Columbians. It will show unity.

It will show that compassion and care that I spoke of. It’s just the right thing to

do, and we need to do it.

Now, when you look at a tax bill and you look at an amendment to a tax bill…. I’m

reminded of the eloquent words of no less than that great physicist and genius, Albert

Einstein: “This is too difficult for a mathematician. It takes a philosopher.” Perhaps

he was referring to Critical Minerals on the other side, who is, as I understand it,

a philosopher. He went on to say: “The hardest thing in the world to understand is

the income tax.”

I think the hardest thing to understand about the income tax is why it’s there at

all when we have so many abundant resources in this province that we could bring forth

out of the ground and pay for so much, if only we hadn’t been wasting money over successive

governments over many years.

[11:20 a.m.]

Now, it’s also the case that another famous speaker who I think my learned colleagues

on the other side would recognize, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was the President of

the United States in a very difficult time, in an isolationist time that the United

States was participating in, until it was abruptly ended by conflict, quite sadly.

“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.

People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

This is a warning from that time to this future.

I believe very strongly that this amendment is something that British Columbians will

support and get behind and believe in. They will be so happy when those dressed in

orange join with those dressed in blue to propose a bit of tax relief. A bit of tax

relief is not too much to ask for.

I think this is the right thing to do. I think this is necessary. It’s that grocery

rebate that was promised, delivered, but through the tax system, not through a press

release. It’s something that would be much more effective.

If people truly need help now so they can get ahead, as it was said by the Premier,

then let us have that tax relief. Let us go forth together. Let us go forth together

joined in supporting this amendment that will give British Columbians the tax relief

they so desperately need to be able to prosper. Even a little bit of money handed

to so many people can make such a difference, circulating in the economy and making

that money grow in value.

Let’s not keep the people of British Columbia waiting. Let’s put money in people’s

pockets. Let’s provide some relief. Let’s present accountability. And let’s give us

that amendment and make it permanent so that the income tax is something that is fixed

or made better. It’s not fixed; it’s made somewhat better.

Death and taxes are certainties. That’s been said many times. I believe that was something

the learned Mr. Churchill referred to.

This tax cut isn’t aimed at billionaires. This is not aimed at speculators. This is

not aimed at those who are sipping their lattes on 4th Avenue. This is not aimed at

anyone of great wealth with expensive vehicles to drive and wonderful mansions to

live in, in West Point Grey. This is aimed at the middle class and the working families

of British Columbia. These are the people who work hard. These are the people who

pay their bills. Should they continue to be punished for their efforts? Certainly

not.

This is about growth. It is about fairness. If you lower the taxes on low- and middle-income

earners, what that means is they will be spending that money. They won’t have to try

to save a penny or two, which is almost impossible for them anyway.

This kind of effort is good for those little small family businesses. It’s good for

the corner stores. It’s good for communities. It’s good for cities.

We’re seeing more and more money go out of our communities as people turn to online

shopping and the internet and big-box stores. The mom-and-pop stores are the backbone

of our economy, and they deserve and need our support. This amendment will help circulate

that money through their stores so they can pay the wages of those teenagers who are

in there working retail and helping to contribute.

This amendment is a good thing for British Columbians. This will help people stay

afloat in these tough times. Why are we heavily taxing those already underwater?

To every member on the side of the government, that narrowly elected government, to

our dear friends and colleagues over there: if you believe what your Premier says

and has said repeatedly, then you must support this amendment. You must. If you believe

in affordability, then you must support this amendment. If you believe in lifting

the people up, then stop letting them down. Support this amendment.

[11:25 a.m.]

The average British Columbian is $200 away from a financial crisis. A missed paycheque

could be a financial disaster. This little bit of tax relief could make a huge difference.

Let’s make things better for British Columbians, not harder. Let’s give people a break.

If we can just raise this basic personal amount that this amendment proposes, deliver

on the promise that the government chose to break and give British Columbians the

$500 a year that they were told to expect not just one time but continually, then

we must be responsible, be sensible, be compassionate and do the right thing for the

hard-working people of this province: pass the grocery rebate guarantee and make it

law.

I really hope that members will stand with the opposition, support this bill and do

the right thing for British Columbians. Let’s give them some tax relief.

Thank you so much. I very much appreciate the time.

Scott McInnis : I would like to thank the member for Prince George–North Cariboo for that hybrid

delivery of a Shakespearean play, a history lesson and a bill amendment speech. Thank

you to my colleague for that.

I agree with one thing that the Finance Minister said last evening in her response

to this amendment that we debate here today. We are facing the most pressing economic

threat of our time, and it is this NDP government.

I also want to respectfully disagree with the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions,

who accused opposition members of attacking, personally, the character of the Finance

Minister. Politics isn’t personal. This is not a place for personal attacks. Although

I disagree with the politics of my colleagues opposite, I respect them in every sense.

Our frustration isn’t with the Finance Minister. It is with the bean-counters behind

the scenes, within this government, who can’t seem to understand simple, basic arithmetic:

when you have one and you take away ten, it does not equal zero.

Today I rise with purpose. I rise not only as a representative of my wonderful constituents

in Columbia River–Revelstoke but as a voice for every British Columbian who has looked

at their grocery bill this month and asked: “How am I going to make it?”

I rise today to support the amendment to Bill 5, the income tax amendment act — a

simple, straightforward and necessary solution that brings real, immediate financial

relief to the people of this province. This amendment, if passed, would save every

British Columbian $500 a year through a refundable provincial income tax claim. For

a two-income household, that’s $1,000 back in their pockets.

Let’s be clear. This is not a luxury; this is a lifeline. Right now across British

Columbia, families are hanging on by a thread. The Premier himself knows it; his Finance

Minister knows it. All members opposite must feel it when they go home to their ridings

and hear from everyday people who are drowning in bills, living off credit cards and

walking past staples at the grocery store because they simply can’t afford them anymore.

British Columbians are, on average, $200 away from not being able to pay their bills

each month.

This is British Columbia, the best place in the world, and people cannot afford to

live. That’s not a political talking point; it’s a crisis. It’s not theoretical; it’s

the harsh reality for seniors, single parents, small business owners and young families

alike.

[11:30 a.m.]

What has this government done? They’ve made promises, and they’ve broken them. In

the fall, the NDP promised British Columbians a $1,000 grocery rebate. It was widely

reported. It was applauded by their own members. It was even budgeted for. British

Columbians were told help was coming, that the government recognized the pressures

and would deliver immediate relief.

But when the time came to follow through, the government abandoned its promise, and

when pressed for answers, they blamed Donald Trump and the threat of tariffs. That

excuse doesn’t hold any water in here. The rebate was promised before those tariffs

were even on the table. The numbers were already in the budget. The words were already

out of the Premier’s mouth. If the government truly believed in that rebate, they

would have delivered it. But they didn’t, because promises from this government can

be very paper-thin.

That’s why, as the B.C. Conservatives, we are stepping up. If this government won’t

deliver relief to working families, we will. The Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee)

Amendment Act is a clean, simple and affordable way to do what the Premier didn’t

— give people something back. This isn’t a patchwork program with bureaucracy and

delays. This is a direct, refundable $500 tax credit that every British Columbian

can claim on their personal income tax. It’s predictable, it’s easy to administer,

and it’s effective.

Let’s not forget that the government can afford it. If they can afford to hire $1

million worth of Twitter typers in the Premier’s office, they can afford to give a

grocery rebate to the hard-working families in Revelstoke, Golden, Nicholson, Edgewater,

Wasa and everywhere in between.

This government claims to stand for affordability, yet with record-high deficits and

a skyrocketing debt that will have us paying over $2 million an hour in interest payments

by 2028…. Let that sink in for a second — $2 million an hour to service the debt while

families are skipping meals to feed their kids. That’s unacceptable and not sustainable.

This government has no plan, no course correction, no answers. They’re good people

over there, doing the same job we are, and I respect each and every one of them for

doing it. But the basic lack of accounting from someone within the NDP yoke is astounding.

And now after taking so much from British Columbians, they are going to walk away

from the one thing they promised to give back, a grocery rebate. I’m asking them to

reconsider.

Well, the B.C. Conservatives are here to say enough is enough. We are here for the

single mother in Golden, who’s deciding between diapers and dinner. We are here for

the retired couple in Ta Ta Creek whose fixed income hasn’t kept pace with skyrocketing

food costs. We are here for the millworker in Radium who is watching their paycheque

disappear before the month is over. We are here for the family in Kimberley, the tradesmen

in Fairmont, the nurse in Invermere. We are here for all of you. We are here to say:

“You deserve relief. You deserve honesty. You deserve just a little extra cash in

your pocket.”

This amendment is not just a tax credit. It’s a message, a message that there are

still people in this Legislature who are fighting for working families, a message

that politics isn’t just about slogans and press conferences. It’s about deliverables.

This amendment is about far more than just dollars and cents. It’s about dignity.

It’s about recognizing the struggle that British Columbians are facing in every corner

of this province. And choosing, as legislators, to stand on the side of working people

is not a political spin.

This is not just a tax credit. It’s a declaration, a message loud and clear that the

Conservative Party of British Columbia sees the people who thought they were getting

a grocery rebate. And then — pow! — it was gone. It is a message that says: there

are still people in this House fighting for you.

[11:35 a.m.]

British Columbians are desperate. This $1,000 grocery rebate will go a long way, especially

for people in rural British Columbia, who face very unique challenges. We’re stepping

up because if this government won’t, we most certainly will.

We believe in British Columbians. This amendment restores something that’s been missing

from this chamber for far too long, and that is trust. It is a clear, simple, accountable

measure that delivers tangible help, not next year, not buried in red tape but right

now. It gives people something back at a time when everything seems to be taken from

them: their sense of security, their ability to get ahead, even their confidence that

government still works for them.

Well, hope is what this amendment will deliver, and not in a symbolic way, in a real,

practical, family-first way. We are not here to score political points. We are here

to do the job this government promised British Columbians they would do.

I’d like to take a moment to talk about what $500 really means to the people, especially

the great folks in Columbia River–Revelstoke. For some in this House, $500 might seem

like a drop in the bucket, but for families in our region, it’s about serious choices

in their lives.

That $500 could mean a full tank of gas every month for the single mom in Invermere

who drives 20 minutes each way every single day just to get her kids to daycare and

to make it to work on time. That’s not a luxury. That’s a necessity, and it’s getting

harder and harder to afford.

That $500 could be the difference for a family in Golden or Invermere who wants to

buy their child a ski pass, not just for fun but for community, for exercise, for

precious memories. It could mean dance lessons in Kimberley for the daughter of a

single-income household — a chance to express herself, to feel confident, to belong.

It could mean hockey gear, a summer camp registration or a school trip that suddenly

becomes possible because someone in this Legislature finally delivered help that matters.

Or maybe the young tradesman in Canal Flats or the new teacher in Edgewater, just

getting started in life, living in their first apartment and trying to turn it into

a home. That $500 could mean a real mattress, a kitchen table, a proper sofa, the

basic things that keep someone to feel rooted in their community and proud of what

they’re building.

Rural British Columbians, especially in Columbia River–Revelstoke, are doing everything

right, but they’re still falling behind. They work hard. They volunteer. They raise

families. They pay their taxes. What do they get in return? Higher costs, fewer services

and unfulfilled promises.

This tax relief may not solve every problem. We understand that. But it sends a clear

message: we see you, we value you, and I guarantee your MLA and the rest of this opposition

is going to fight tooth and nail for you every step of the way.

In a government that seems increasingly centred around the Lower Mainland, it’s time

that Columbia River–Revelstoke and all of rural British Columbia get something back

for a change.

[11:40 a.m.]

A $500 income tax rebate for every British Columbian, a $1,000 tax break for working

couples and two-income households. No bureaucratic hoops. No political games. Just

real relief for real people. This is the start of a different kind of politics around

here, one that puts the taxpayer first, that puts the family first, that puts everybody

in this province first.

We are not afraid to lead on this side of the House. We are not afraid to stand on

principle. We are not afraid to say to every British Columbian, loud and clear: help

is on the way, and we will not rest until you get it.

Macklin McCall : I rise today to speak in strong support of the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee)

Amendment Act, an amendment that will make a real difference in the lives of everyday

British Columbians.

Before I get into the details, let us take a moment to reflect on what this amendment

symbolizes. The amendment is not just a technical tax change. It is the duty of the

government to live up to their flagship campaign promise, a promise that was promptly

broken, betraying every British Columbian that voted for them last year. The amendment

represents a return to basic fairness and the reaffirmation of trust between the government

and the people.

The tax relief will provide the grocery rebate promised during the election and restore

fairness to British Columbians’ wallets after almost a decade of NDP fiscal incompetency

and economic destruction.

This is not just about numbers on a tax form. It is about people, families, seniors,

students and workers who are just trying to get by. It’s about putting money back

in the pockets of those who need it most. It’s about keeping a promise that this government

made and then walked away from.

That is precisely what the amendment to the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025,

accomplishes. It keeps the Premier’s original $1,000 grocery rebate promise alive

through permanent tax relief for every family in every corner of this great province.

Right now the real economic value of the amendment lies in its equal application.

Every British Columbian who files taxes stands to benefit from it, removing barriers

and replacing NDP uncertainty with conservative, universal certainty.

Let me be clear. This bill proposes $500 of annual tax savings for every single British

Columbian who files income tax in this province. That means a two-income household

will see $1,000 back in their pocket every single year. Not once. Not a one-time rebate

— every single year. This matters. It is immediate and impactful relief for British

Columbians.

I recently spoke with a single mother in Peachland. She works two jobs. During the

day, at a medical clinic; at night, cleaning offices. She told me her grocery bill

has gone up by over $200 a month since last year. She’s not buying anything extravagant.

Milk, bread, pasta, eggs when they’re on sale. She’s cutting back on fruit. Her kids

love apples, but even that’s now a luxury. This amendment responds directly to the

stories like hers by delivering real relief through income tax savings.

Her story is not unique. Across the province, I’ve heard stories of struggling British

Columbians. Seniors buying canned soup in bulk not because they prefer it but because

it’s all that they can afford. Young people and students skipping meals some days

to keep up with rent, and retired British Columbians on fixed incomes relying on food

banks for staples they used to buy without a second thought. This amendment matters

to every single one of these British Columbians.

[11:45 a.m.]

Allow me to take a moment to speak about what this amendment will do for the people

I represent, my neighbours, the residents of West Kelowna–Peachland. From the lakeside

communities to the foothills and farmland, this is a region full of everyday British

Columbians who work hard and care deeply for their families. They do not want special

treatment. They just want fairness. They want the ability to keep up with rising costs

without sacrificing their quality of life.

The amendment proposed will bring meaningful and much-needed relief to households

across the region, whether it’s a young family juggling child care and mortgage payments,

a small business owner navigating unpredictable costs or a retired couple adjusting

to inflation on a fixed income. These stories are far too common in my riding.

These are folks who aren’t looking for a handout. They simply want the government

to deliver on the tax fairness that was promised. The amendment delivers the fairness

through a straightforward, permanent increase to the basic personal income tax credit

— no applications, no waiting, just reliable relief.

I’ve heard from residents and business owners in both urban and rural parts of the

region who are feeling squeezed by the rising cost of living and overburdened by this

provincial government’s punitive taxes and throttling regulations. The armchair pseudo-socialists

opposite who claim to represent the working people of this province are completely

out of touch with the dark reality they have created.

Grocery costs are climbing, gas prices are unpredictable, and wages are struggling

to keep pace, all while hidden carbon taxes and excessive regulations are driving

businesses out. With this amendment, thousands of individuals and families will have

more room in their budgets. They will be better equipped to manage life’s essentials,

from school supplies and fresh produce to prescription medication and utility bills.

Adopting this amendment can be a signal to the people I represent and those struggling

all across the province that they are seen and heard, that the government understands

their struggle and that their contributions to the economy, to their communities,

to their families are valued. This amendment respects this reality and responds to

it with practical support for all.

This is immediate relief. The Premier himself said: “People need help now so they

can get ahead.” He’s absolutely right. But what happened to the $1,000 annual grocery

rebate the Premier promised during the election? He said it was coming. People counted

on it. They voted based on it. And then, nothing.

This bill rectifies that broken promise. It keeps the spirit of that commitment alive

and makes it permanent, not through cheques that may or may not arrive but through

tangible tax savings every paycheque every year. The amendment to subsection 4.3(1.1)

of the Income Tax Act enshrines this promise into law.

To my colleagues who hesitate, I say this. Let this be a moment to prove that we can

put partisanship aside when the stakes are real and when the people of British Columbia

are counting on us. This isn’t a handout. It’s a lifeline. It’s about dignity. It’s

about giving families just a bit of breathing room so they can buy the groceries they

need without anxiety, so they can fill a tank of gas without checking their bank balance

first or so they can maybe, just maybe, afford a nice birthday gift for their child.

The government has said they’re on the side of working people. Well, here’s a test

to that. Will they support a bill that puts $1,000 back in the pockets of a hard-working

couple in Kamloops or a nurse and a teacher living in northern B.C. who are barely

holding on under the rising cost of living?

The Premier said, “a $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the year after that and the

year after that,” yet that promise has been swept under the rug. This bill brings

it back and ensures it isn’t just an election talking point.

Some in this House will ask: “How will we afford this?” My response is: “Can we afford

not to?” British Columbians are being squeezed from every angle. Rents are up, gas

is up, insurance premiums are up, and food inflation is up. Recent polls said that

more than half of Canadians are just $200 away from not being able to pay their bills

— $200. That’s one flat tire. That’s one emergency vet visit. That’s one extra week

of daycare.

[11:50 a.m.]

This bill would provide immediate help to those families. It’s not just good policy;

it’s the right thing to do. Under this plan, families get more support, and they get

it right away — not in 18 months, not if you qualify for some complicated eligibility

formula, not if you’re lucky enough to get through the red tape but right now.

Last year the Premier himself said: “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, this amendment doesn’t wait. It doesn’t speculate. It delivers.

I know some across the aisle may say this isn’t their bill, so they can’t support

it. But I urge them to think about who this bill is really for. It’s for the young

family in Kelowna struggling to afford baby formula and diapers. It’s for the senior

in West Kelowna who now skips lunch to afford her prescription meds. It’s for the

grocery clerk in Summerland who just wants to afford gas to get to work.

As 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.” Well, if that’s true,

then they will have no trouble voting in support of this amendment, because that’s

exactly what it does.

This bill is simple, direct and fair. It doesn’t require an application. It doesn’t

require bureaucracy. It’s built into the system. And most importantly, it provides

dignity, relief and certainty for millions of British Columbians.

Before I close, I want to share something personal. Before entering political life,

I spent years serving British Columbians as an officer with the RCMP. That experience

shaped my values, service, accountability and justice.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I’ve seen up close how poverty, stress and instability can harm not just families

but entire communities.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue the debate.

Macklin McCall moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Jessie Sunner :

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

Leave granted.

Personal Statements

Consideration of Comments

Made in the House

Susie Chant : I rise on a point of order, if I may.

Early in my opening reflection, I referenced a quote attributed to Henry Ford, without

considering the full context of his legacy. Thank you to my colleagues who have helped

me to recognize that invoking Ford’s name, given his well-documented history of antisemitism,

was inappropriate and hurtful.

I want to be clear. I completely condemn antisemitism and the harmful ideas that Henry

Ford promoted. I deeply regret my oversight and any hurt this may have caused, particularly

to members of the Jewish community. I’m committed to learning from this and being

more thoughtful in the future.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : This House stands adjourned until one o’clock this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization

(Tariff Response) Act

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole,

Section A, on Bill 7, Economic

Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, to order.

On clause 7 as amended (continued) .

Gavin Dew : Just picking up where we left off yesterday, we were discussing matters around issues

such as community benefits agreements and project labour agreements and whether or

not the powers enumerated could be used either to require such agreements or to change

requirements around such agreements, particularly in the context of American-headquartered

labour unions.

I’m hoping that the Attorney General can expand on what consultation was undertaken,

both with organized labour and with open-shop, in order to ensure that they had an

understanding and confidence around what the powers in

section 7, or

part 7, do and

do not allow.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : To make it clear on the legal powers in this bill, this is an enabling piece of statute,

which I think we’ve talked about before. So it enables action.

Where we’ve taken the bill, I think we talked about previously that…. At the TEST

committee, there’s the B.C. Federation of Labour, Unifor and USW that are present

on that committee and are actually very actively involved in many aspects of our tariff

response, along with business leaders and First Nations. So that’s part of the discussions

there.

Once a directive has been issued, or a directive is at play, then there is an opportunity,

also, to touch base with the organization it impacts and the specifics of what that

directive would do to any organizations affected.

Gavin Dew : That’s very helpful information. I’m trying to understand, again, not only the effect

or the empowerment contained within the bill but also the consultation that was undertaken

with such groups in order to make sure that they understood what is and is not achievable

with the bill.

Just for my confirmation, am I correct in understanding from the Attorney General

that voices from organized labour have been consulted around what can and cannot be

done under

part 7?

Hon. Niki Sharma : As I mentioned previously, I presented Bill 7 and the discussions at the TEST committee,

which has representation from labour on it.

Gavin Dew : In light of the fact that organized labour obviously was consulted, can the Attorney

General confirm that voices from open-shop labour were also consulted, such as the

Independent Contractors and Businesses Association?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’ve canvassed this many times about the consultation process with respect to this

bill. I’ve been clear about the steps that we’ve taken in the response to destabilization

from the Trump administration. This bill is to give us the tools to act quickly in

response to that.

Obviously, that means that we didn’t spend months or weeks or years consulting with

a wide range of organizations. But the way this bill is structured, it’s an enabling

power. It gives government the ability to use the tools in it to act.

So there will be many opportunities when using those tools to make sure — and the

work that’s underway with JEDI, as I’ve mentioned many times — that they’re designed

in a way that takes into account all factors.

Gavin Dew : Just for confirmation, while I recognize it’s impossible to fully consult every single

organization in the development of the bill, it would appear from inbound correspondence

and from commentary that there is significant concern around

section 7 and a desire

for clarity as to what it can and cannot be used for with regard to things like community

benefits agreements and project labour agreements.

Can I just get the Attorney General to confirm really clearly that organized labour

was consulted with regard to this, and open-shop labour was not consulted? There are

a number of fairly large organizations that are not difficult to reach, who I think

would likely be looking for clarity as to what is and is not enabled by this part

of the bill.

Just for clarity, a simple yes or no. Were any voices or organizations representing

open-shop labour consulted with regard to the development of this part of the bill,

yes or no? Simple question.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’ve answered this question. I’ve listed the labour organizations that are part of

TEST that we’ve presented the bill to.

I can’t speak for every single ministry with respect to how they’re responding to

their stakeholder group when it comes to the tariff response. I know that every minister

is engaged with whoever their stakeholders are, including labour and the Ministry

of Labour, to talk about what the impacts are of the tariffs on them. That’s work

that all of government is doing.

With respect to Bill 7, which is an enabling statute, I mentioned the TEST committee

and the representatives from labour on that committee.

Gavin Dew : I believe the Attorney General keeps answering a different question than what I’m

asking. I’m not asking whether organized labour was represented. I’m asking, once

again, whether open-shop labour was represented or was consulted in any way, shape

or form in the development of this bill, given the significant implications for labour

and for different approaches to labour.

Just very simply, I’m asking for confirmation that there was any conversation whatsoever

with representatives of open-shop labour, such as the Independent Contractors and

Businesses Association.

[11:20 a.m.]

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.

I would request that you avoid repetition with your line of questioning.

Gavin Dew : The question has not been answered. The question was very simple: were any voices

from open-shop labour consulted? The minister has a list in front of her that she’s

looking at. I’m sure she can read off of that list, and she can inform me as to whether

any representatives of open-shop labour were represented.

I don’t think the question is repetitive. Answering that organized labour has been

represented is not an answer to the question of whether open-shop labour has been

represented.

The question is not repetitive. I would ask the Attorney General to answer it, please.

The Chair : Member, although you might not be satisfied with the minister’s answer, my view is

that the questioning is repetitious in nature, and I would really encourage you to

avoid repetition in your line of questioning.

Gavin Dew : If the Attorney General will not answer the question directly as to whether open-shop

labour was represented, will she make available the list of folks consulted that she

is currently looking at? Will she make that list available so I can ascertain for

myself whether representatives of open-shop labour were represented in consultation

around this portion of the bill, which has significant implications for open-shop

labour?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The reason I’ve answered this question is that I’ve said clearly to the member that

I presented Bill 7 to the TEST committee, and I listed the organizations that were

on the TEST committee that represent labour.

I’ve also said that the Minister of Labour, who is part of our tariff response and

our tariff response committee, is constantly in contact with many stakeholders.

This bill is an enabling statute that helps us bring into force legal tools that every

ministry and every stakeholder will have to help the government respond. I have no

doubt, although the Minister of Labour isn’t here — another ministry is, JEDI — that

they talk to a whole range of stakeholders, including the ones that the member has

talked about.

Gavin Dew : I have reached out directly and been informed that at no time was the Independent

Contractors and Businesses Association representing open-shop labour consulted by

any member of government on this bill.

I’m wondering if the Attorney General would like to just answer the question very

simply for everyone’s confirmation — that, no, open-shop labour was not consulted

in the development of this bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma : The Independent Contractors Association is not on the TEST committee, and I answered

the question about the full-government approach to what we are doing in response to

the tariffs. I have no way right now of verifying, because it’s not applicable to

the bill.

I told the member where I consulted with the bill and the enabling powers in the bill.

Any minister, or government as a whole, has not spoken to that organization.

The Chair : Before I recognize the member, I would just now recognize that the minister has provided

her response, so please continue without the repetitious nature of your questioning.

Gavin Dew : Thank you, Madam Chair. I will endeavour to ask original questions.

Can the Attorney General clarify why voices from open-shop, including the Independent

Contractors and Businesses Association, were not consulted with regard to a portion

of the bill that has major implications for their industry?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Okay, so I think the member would be better informed about the response if he knew

the breadth and depth of the representation that is on the TEST committee. It includes

many organizations that actually represent the breadth of both the labour and employer

side and the business side representation in this province. I went before them and

talked about Bill 12.

[11:25 a.m.]

That includes the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Forest Industries, B.C.

Business Council, B.C. Agriculture Council, the Mining Association of B.C., Canadian

Manufacturers and Exporters, Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority, Prince Rupert Port Authority,

Life Sciences B.C., Food and Beverage B.C., First Nations Major Projects Coalition,

United Steelworkers, B.C. Federation of Labour, Unifor, Shell, B.C. Assembly of First

Nations, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit, Canadian Association of

Petroleum Producers, B.C. Tech, New Economy Canada, tourism association of B.C.

These are the members of the TEST committee that represent a wide breadth of leaders

and organizations in this province. Very grateful that they’re giving us their time

and their expertise to help us formulate our tariff response.

Again, this is an enabling piece of legislation, so it gives the government tools

and powers to respond. That is what it’s meant to do. The conversations of how the

tools in this legislation will be used will be ongoing.

Gavin Dew : I appreciate the Attorney General listing the members of TEST. I’m struggling to

understand…. Since the Attorney General has raised the composition of that committee….

There’s a wide range of organizations represented. I think I heard three representatives

from organized labour.

Could the Attorney General just please help us understand, in light of the size of

the construction sector, if there was a particular reason why representatives of open-shop

labour, such as the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, were excluded

from participation in TEST and why they were seemingly not consulted whatsoever by

any arm of government in the development of this legislation that could have very

material consequences?

At minimum, it runs the risk of creating confusion as to what the powers are and what

the consequences could be, with very serious implications for their members and for

working people all over British Columbia.

Hon. Niki Sharma : My impression of this line of questioning right now is a misunderstanding of the

breadth and representation that is listed in this TEST committee. Actually, also,

the composition of the TEST committee is quite irrelevant to the bill.

I think I’ve expressed more than once, and particularly on clause 7, about who we

spoke to about the bill particularly and also what other government ministers are

doing to speak to many of their stakeholders. I would not have the information before

me right now because of the breadth and depth of the work that is happening cross-ministry,

the full-government approach right now.

I have nothing else to offer on this line of questioning.

The Chair : Member, you have heard the minister’s response. I ask that you avoid the repetitive

nature of questioning.

Gavin Dew : Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly have no desire to be repetitious. I’m simply

looking for clear answers. The Attorney General brought up the composition of the

TEST committee — I didn’t.

But in light of the conversation, I’m wondering if the Attorney General could help

me understand. Of the three representatives of the organized labour community on the

TEST committee, which of those three, if any, have their headquarters located in the

United States of America?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I don’t know the answer to that, nor do I see how it’s relevant. I forgot to mention

B.C. Building Trades, but I guess I did in the bigger list. That’s an important one.

Gavin Dew : I would draw the Attorney General’s attention to her many prior remarks about wanting

to deprioritize American content in terms of procurement as to the relevance of this.

My understanding is that of the preferred unions of this government that participate

in community benefits agreements, 20 plus have their headquarters in the United States.

Union dues paid by members of those unions roll up to union headquarters located in

the United States.

[11:30 a.m.]

I’m just trying to understand, in the context of this conversation, whether this government

is more focused on being Team Canada or more focused on being Team Union.

There are certainly some contradictions there when we realize that, at the same time

as this government wants to do victory laps and wants to do wedge politics and wants

to talk about Team Canada, there’s a refusal to consult with open-shop labour. But

there appears to be no qualm whatsoever about representation on TEST by labour organizations

that are actually headquartered in the United States and whose members’ dues are rolling

up into the United States and whose overall membership may in fact be conflicted in

terms of their primary objective being supporting labour in Canada or supporting labour

in the United States.

I think that’s very material. In particular, I think it’s very material relative to

the powers enumerated in

section 7.

Hon. Niki Sharma : The member is constructing a narrative that is wholly irrelevant to clause 4, which

we’re dealing with right now, of procurement, and is talking quite a bit in a very

disparaging way about our labour force here in B.C. and how many of these unions are

representing a large number of our workforce right now — people that are scared right

now about what their jobs look like and what will happen as a result of the tariffs.

I’ll just get your guidance, Chair. I find it very irrelevant to the powers of

section

7 and a very disappointing line of questioning.

Gavin Dew : There is very direct relevance to the powers enumerated in 7, specifically because

the questions that we have been dwelling on for some time are around whether such

powers can or cannot be used to impose or remove requirements around community benefits

agreements or project labour agreements. It’s a very legitimate question. It’s one

that clearly there has been significant confusion around by stakeholders. I’m simply

trying to get an understanding of those powers and around the consultation undertaken.

I’m genuinely confused why the Attorney General…. I have a lot of respect for front-line

working people, including union members. I have real difficulty in understanding why

the Attorney General thinks it’s appropriate to fearmonger and talk about the work

of folks in the construction trade sector, particularly when she, just minutes ago,

has dismissed out of hand the importance of consulting with open-shop labour. It seems

as though the Attorney General thinks that uncertainty for open-shop labour is okay,

whereas uncertainty for union labour is not okay.

I am looking for a really clear understanding of the implications of this section,

and in particular, I’m looking to understand the powers enumerated and whether, for

example, they could be used to change requirements around community benefits agreements

or project labour agreements, taking into account the fact that through those community

benefits agreements imposed by government, there is benefit accruing to American organizations,

and the Attorney General has spoken often in her remarks about the desire to exclude

American content.

I’m simply trying to understand how that is defined. Does the Attorney General think

it is relevant whether or not the powers enumerated here would allow changes to community

benefits agreements to ensure that Canadian workers benefit and that American union

headquarters rolling up fees from members are not the beneficiaries, in order to be

consistent with the messaging put out by this very government?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Asked and answered. If we think about the line of questioning right now and from

yesterday, all of these questions have been answered.

Gavin Dew : While the Attorney General may wish to believe all these questions have been answered,

they haven’t. And satisfactory answers have not been provided. Saying “asked and answered”

doesn’t mean the question has been answered.

Just to confirm, was there discussion in the development of this portion of the bill

as to whether or not the powers that are enumerated could or would be used in order

to change procurement requirements around community benefits agreements to ensure

that benefit is not accruing to the American headquarters of local organized labour

groups?

I think it’s a very simple question, and it’s one that’s quite fundamental.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Again, Chair, if we go back to yesterday, the member asked me many questions about

CBAs and what the powers do or don’t do with respect to interfering and/or the procurement

powers of government to do that. I find this line of questioning very repetitive,

and I’ve answered them.

The Chair : Member, the minister has provided her response. I recognize you might not be satisfied

with her response. However, to ensure effective use of the committee’s time, I ask

that you avoid repetition in your line of questioning.

Gavin Dew : My questions will be less repetitive if the answers are less non-existent or less

repetitive.

I would like to understand very clearly whether the powers enumerated can be used

to change requirements around community benefits. If the answer is that they cannot,

I would like to understand why the Attorney General has not sought powers that would

allow community benefits agreements to be changed to ensure that union dues paid by

Canadian union members who are working in Canada stay in Canada rather than rolling

up into America.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Belabouring the point over there, there’s nothing in the powers here under procurement

section 7 that allow us to direct a union. That’s not how the powers of government

work, and it’s not how unionized labour in this province works. Government doesn’t

do that.

I’ve answered the questions about the powers in here, and I’m happy to move on to

another line of questioning.

Gavin Dew : I’m not done asking about this because I haven’t gotten answers, and I want consistency

from this government.

Look, Canada remains the only country in the world where a number of labour unions

pay dues to unions based in another country — in this case, the United States. That

means tens of millions of dollars every year from the wages of Canadian union workers

are sent every day to union head offices in the United States.

In fact, some of those dues have ended up being donated to electoral campaigns, including

the electoral campaign of President Donald Trump. I think that’s pretty significant.

I think that when it comes to consistency, what we have….

The reason why I continue asking this question is that there is a lack of clarity

in the construction community around this portion of the bill. There is a desire to

understand, both in terms of whether it can be used to impose community benefits agreements

or project labour agreements…. The Attorney General has been totally clear that it

cannot be.

I’m trying to understand if it can be used to change conditions around community benefits

agreements or project labour agreements for government procurement. I don’t really

feel I got a clear answer there. I’m trying to understand why we would not, through

enabling legislation, create the right to change conditions around community benefits

agreements in order to be consistent. What we have is a situation where Canadian union

workers are being forced to pay dues that are rolling up to American head offices

and being donated to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

Why would we not, through this enabling legislation, seek the power to make changes

to community benefits agreements on public procurement in order to ensure that the

wages of hard-working Canadian union labour workers are not being taken from them

and given to Donald Trump in support of his damage to the Canadian economy and the

diminishment of their opportunity and their livelihood?

[11:40 a.m.]

Why would we not seek to empower those kinds of changes through this legislation and

through this section? I think it’s a very important question.

The Chair : Members, just a reminder to have your electronic devices on silent.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I want to go back to the powers of this bill and to explain to the member again.

What I think he’s suggesting, which I hope he’s not, is that the powers of this bill

have nothing in it to direct a union how to direct their dues.

If you were going to design a procurement process to, somehow through that process,

dictate the dues of a union…. I wonder if that would be challenged by corporate. Let’s

say it’s not. What, in effect, he would be saying was that some of the major unions

that employ or membership spans a huge portion of British Columbians…. I don’t have

the exact number on them, but I just think of USW, I think of Building Trades, a lot

of the unions that represent many workers in this province.

I think what he would be suggesting, if I follow that logic — although at this point,

I can’t say if it’s legal or not to even do that — is that he would be suggesting

a pathway that would cut out a lot of workers from our procurement policy and, therefore,

do quite the exact opposite of what we would be intending to use these powers for.

Gavin Dew : The Attorney General is mistaken. I am not proposing an approach that would cut out

workers, nor am I proposing an approach that is hostile to organized labour.

In fact, I am proposing an approach that echoes an approach taken by the Confederation

of Canadian Unions. On February 24, 2024, the president, Gregory Ball, wrote to Prime

Minister Trudeau at the time, asking them to ban the transfer of union dues outside

of Canada.

We have a situation here where there’s actually a pretty fundamental conversation

around procurement and, where, in fact, unions themselves have been calling for a

ban on their dues being transferred to America. They were doing so more than a year

ago, but now the urgency of that conversation actually has been heightened.

Back then, it was a hypothetical. Today we are dealing with a situation where this

government has imposed community benefits agreements on a significant number of public

procurement processes. Twenty-plus of the preferred unions in that particular situation

have their dues flowing up to headquarters in the United States, which means the dues

of hard-working, dues-paying Canadian organized labour workers are going into the

campaign of Donald Trump.

So I fail to see how the Attorney General is arriving at the conclusion that my question

is anything at all anti-labour. What it comes down to is a desire for consistency.

The Attorney General and the government have talked over and over and over again about

trying to cut Americans out of benefiting from procurement. Here we have a situation

where you have American union headquarters who have been donating to Donald Trump

benefiting from the sweat and toil of Canadian organized labour workers.

[11:45 a.m.]

I’m trying to understand whether the powers enumerated under

part 7 allow government

to change community benefits agreement requirements, for example, to require that

in a situation where there is a requirement or where there is a mandate around organized

labour participation, there is also a mandate that the dues of those workers working

on Canadian projects paid for by British Columbia taxpayers are not flowing into the

coffers of Donald Trump’s campaign.

If those powers are not enabled by

part 7, why not, and will the Attorney General

consider changes to enable that?

I think that’s very reasonable. I think it’s very fair. I think it’s very much on

the side of the hard-working, front-line union workers in Canada who don’t want to

be paying for the campaign of a president who is hammering them.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I would like to ask the member if he has consulted with the labour organizations

that he’s referring to or the ones that I talk through that I presented Bill 7 to

and whether they have asked for such a thing, because I have not heard that.

I would like to say very clearly that procurement and this provision is meant to direct

government procurement entities to exclude America where possible, and the tools in

this are to also get people to work, to help understand how people can get to work

and how we can drive people to work.

Maybe there’s a conversation that needs to be had with the Minister of Labour about

what the member is suggesting. But I would say that the mechanism of procurement through

government with the pretty large labour union representation that was sitting at the

table when we presented Bill 7 are more concerned or very concerned about making sure

that people can stay in their jobs and their jobs can be protected, and this is a

tool for doing that.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : The committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.