Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 4, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 322

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

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Firefighters Day

S. Bond

Neighbourhood houses

G. Chow

Lytton fire recovery process

J. Tegart

Graduates of 2023 in Vernon-Monashee area

H. Sandhu

Raven’s Nest child and youth advocacy centre

S. Furstenau

Red Dress Day and action for missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people

K. Paddon

Oral Questions

Service models for children with support needs

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

Residence and travel costs of Vancouver–West End MLA

T. Halford

Hon. R. Kahlon

Education funding

A. Olsen

Hon. R. Kahlon

Implementation of health professions legislation and consultation by government

J. Rustad

Hon. A. Dix

Crime in communities and impact on businesses

R. Merrifield

Hon. B. Bailey

Release of B.C. Housing audit report

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

Petitions

I. Paton

S. Furstenau

J. Rustad

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

Hon. K. Conroy

P. Milobar

Estimates: Management of public funds and debt

Estimates: Other appropriations

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2023

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.

Introductions by Members

H. Sandhu: Today I’m excited to share that I have a special guest from Vernon

joining us in the gallery, Dave MacKenzie. Dave is an amazing teacher at

Lavington School, and Dave has been teaching for the last 28 years. Dave is

also a local representative with the Vernon Teachers’ Association. He

advocates for teachers, so that our kids can get the best possible learning

experience, while these great teachers help our kids to shape their

future.

Joining with Dave are the VPs of BCTF, to speak with the Minister of

Education.

Would the House please join me to welcome Dave and the entire

delegation in the House and to thank him for his incredible work — along

with many other wonderful teachers.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have with us today guests from Habitat for Humanity — Scott

Fehrenbacher, CEO from Vancouver; Scott Dutchak, CEO from Victoria; Andrea

Manifold, CEO from Okanagan; Elaine Pura, the ED for southeast B.C.; Jeff

Krafta, the ED for mid–Vancouver Island; Alana Lavoie, national director of

housing policy and government relations; and Jonathan Fehr, from

Vancouver.

I’m hoping the House can please make them very welcome.

[10:05 a.m.]

S. Bond: I’m delighted today to welcome the advocacy committee delegation from

the ALS Society.

We have with us today Wendy Toyer, the unbelievably hard-working

executive director.

Dr. Andrew Eisen, who is the founder and honorary lifetime

director.

Jim Williams, who is a director. He lost his dad to ALS.

Darryl Borsato and Chrissy Borsato. Darryl is living with ALS and has

lost other family members.

Richard Poliquin, diagnosed with ALS in 2005.

Donna Bartel, ALS Society of British Columbia past president. She lost

her mom to ALS.

Susan Brice, member of the ALS Society of British Columbia. She lost

her husband to ALS. Obviously, she is also a former Member of the

Legislative Assembly.

Stephanie Marshall-White, a member of the ALS Society of B.C., who

lost her mother to ALS.

ALS is an absolutely devastating diagnosis for a person to receive.

The life expectancy is often three to five years. There is so much more that

we need to do. The Minister of Health and I have had conversations about

speeding up the approval for drugs in British Columbia, making sure that we

support as many people as possible. Obviously, critically important is that

we move to having clinical trials in British Columbia.

Welcome to the delegation. I am so grateful for the work they do,

every single day, to support families and people impacted by ALS.

Hon. A. Dix: I’d join the member for Prince George–​Valemount, who has

introduced members of the delegation from the ALS Society of B.C. The

society has done and is doing exceptional things. It’s work that we’re doing

together, including members across party lines in this House, to support

people living with ALS.

I want to welcome Wendy; I look forward to meeting her later this

afternoon. I know she’s meeting with other members, including members on

both sides of the House. I want to acknowledge, in particular, Darryl

Borsato and Richard Poliquin, who are living with an ALS diagnosis, which is

a very challenging thing, and who, while living with this diagnosis, are

such strong advocates.

Obviously, all the people working with people with ALS do exceptional

things. I look forward to meeting with them today. I look forward to the

ongoing work we’re doing to make life better for people living with ALS, and

also to the clinical trials needed to make a fundamental change and to give

hope to everybody — families and those living with the diagnosis in

B.C.

I ask the House to join me, and join the member, in making them

welcome.

E. Sturko: I’d like to introduce a very large school group from Hazelgrove

Elementary, in my riding. They’ll be visiting the Parliament Buildings

today, travelling with their teacher AJ Dhaliwal. There are 33 grade five

students that will be in the gallery over the next hour.

I would ask that the House please help me make them

welcome.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Today we’re joined in the House by some of the team from the B.C.

Teachers Federation. We all can remember a teacher who was really important

in our lives. They do such important work in our province, providing

inspiration and encouragement to kids. I’m really pleased that they’re here

for meetings with various members of the House today.

Joining us are Carole Gordon, first vice-president; Robin Tosczak,

second vice-president; Tammy Le, member and teacher-librarian from Surrey;

Dave MacKenzie, member and president of the B.C. School Counsellors

Association, as well as BCTF staff Anna Chudnovsky and Amy Smart.

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

R. Merrifield: Today in the House, I have my mom and dad. My dad taught me courage;

my mom taught me to be strong. My dad taught me compassion; my mom taught me

to be kind. My dad taught me to be almost funny; my mom taught me to be

almost appropriate. My dad taught me to lead; my mom taught me how to

support the cause. My dad taught me strategy, while my mom taught me

solutions.

[10:10 a.m.]

My dad gave me my height, but my mom gave me my beauty. Both of them

together taught me that family is paramount and that it’s what you make it,

not just what you’re given.

Could everyone in the House join me in welcoming the best parents in

the whole wide world, Bruce and Norma Merrifield.

Hon. B. Bailey: As Minister for JEDI, if I could just take a moment to wish everyone

happy Star Wars Day. May your blasters shoot straight. May your loved ones

know they are loved. And May the fourth be with you.

K. Paddon: I’m going to join my colleague, the member for Surrey South in

welcoming the elementary students from Hazelgrove and, most specifically,

one of my favourite students from Hazelgrove who is Drake Yugai, my nephew.

I’m very lucky to get to be his aunt. He’s here with his mom, Kaleigh Yugai.

I’m just very happy to have family on the precinct.

Thank you for being here.

Will the House join me.

T. Wat: I’m so happy to welcome two Richmond residents, Michael Friedman and

Cathy Luu to our Legislature.

Michael has been a residential mortgage professional for 43 years,

owning and operating a mortgage brokerage. He is currently a board member of

Aspire Richmond, formerly known as Richmond Society for Community Living.

He’s also a supporter of Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives Richmond Christmas

fund, which has been helping many families and individuals in

Richmond.

Cathy immigrated to Canada from Vietnam with her family 31 years ago.

Cathy obtained her cosmetologist license as part of her continuing

education. After working for others for a few years, Cathy opened her own

salon and continues to succeed. Cathy and Michael are proud British

Columbians and strong advocates for persons with disabilities.

Please join me in welcoming Michael and Cathy.

J. Rustad: It’s a great pleasure today to introduce a group that is here to

witness question period today, but also to express interest and concern

around Bill 36 in our health care system.

Today in the gallery we have a group of 29 mostly doctors, nurses, and

other health care professionals. For sake of time, I won’t introduce all of

the names, but I just want the House to welcome very much these health care

professionals, these professionals that are providing for us every day

across this province to make sure that our health care system is as good as

it can be.

Will the House please make them welcome.

A. Olsen: I’d like to stand and introduce today a constituent of mine from the

Saanich Peninsula, Reverend Mark Collins. Reverend Collins is a retired

United Church minister and social worker living in Sidney. And for those of

you who are from Surrey, you might recognize Reverend Collins. He’s been

visiting us on a somewhat regular basis, more regular than many of our

constituents do.

Could the House please make Reverend Collins welcome today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL FIREFIGHTERS DAY

S. Bond: On May 4 we take the opportunity to reflect on the dedication and

service of firefighters in our province and around the world. Today, on

International Firefighters Day, we remember those firefighters who have

paid the ultimate price and express our gratitude and support for those

who continue to protect us every day.

Firefighters dedicate their lives to protecting people and

property, and whether they are professional, volunteer, industrial or

B.C. fire service firefighters, they are the men and women who put

themselves in harm’s way so that we can be safe. They are the ones that

run toward danger when we are running away. And for that, we are

profoundly grateful.

We know that the job of a firefighter is so much more than

responding to a fire call. WorkBC describes the duties of a firefighter

this way: “Firefighters respond to fire alarms and other calls for

assistance such as automobile and industrial accidents, various types of

medical emergencies, bomb threats, wildfires, floods as well as other

serious situations, incidents and emergencies.”

[10:15 a.m.]

Firefighters are there for us at some of the most difficult times

in our lives. We need to do our part to ensure that they have the

support and resources they need, especially related to their physical

and mental well-being. Recently there have been calls to consider the

safety of the gear that firefighters wear, something all of us should be

concerned about.

I want to challenge every member. The next time that you hear a

siren in your community or wherever you are, take the time to remember

that someone needs help and that firefighters and first responders are

on their way. Think about the risk that they are taking and how

desperately we want them to be safe in whatever situation they face. As

the very proud mother of a professional firefighter, that is my hope and

prayer every time I hear a siren.

NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSES

G. Chow: This week is Neighbourhood House Week, which celebrates and

acknowledges the work that Neighbourhood Houses do in our

communities.

You may ask: what is the difference between a Neighbourhood House

and a city community centre? I would say, on one hand, there’s no

difference. Both are gathering places for the community that are doing

good. On the other hand, there is a difference, and it is in the

programming, not unlike the difference between the city police and the

RCMP, I suppose.

The Neighbourhood House is a community space that differs from a

community centre due to the many programs and services, from low-cost to

no-cost. The programs are responsive to the needs, trends, issues and

wants of the community. The age range is from birth onward and inclusive

to all.

In my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, we have the South Vancouver

Neighbourhood House that was established in 1977. Currently it serves

around 7,700 indivi­duals with over 900 volunteers. The

Neighbourhood House offers a variety of programs and services that

support individuals and families, such as seniors’ wellness and youth

leadership, pre-school and out-of-school care, parenting and family

resource programs, settlement services for newcomers, food security,

literacy, adult day programs, employment-related training, and

more.

South Vancouver Neighbourhood House works in partnership with over

100 community agencies with programs that are placed in different

locations according to where people form neighbourhoods and their needs.

For example, a family drop-in program at an art centre near an

elementary school, an adult day program in the local shopping mall, or a

women’s group in the city community centre.

Neighbourhood Houses are like the thread sewn into a community

quilt, bridging and connecting people from diverse communities,

cultures, languages and age groups.

LYTTON FIRE RECOVERY PROCESS

J. Tegart: My hope was that 672 days after the community of Lytton burned to

the ground, I would be standing here sharing with you the exciting news

of residents rebuilding, the exciting news of businesses reopening and

of health services returning, of people rejoicing about coming

home.

Unfortunately that is not the story of Lytton today. It’s 672

days, and not a home rebuilt within the village or a business community

re-established. I received word yesterday of another resident of Lytton

that has passed away waiting to go home.

Six hundred and seventy-two days. Surely we can do

better.

GRADUATES OF 2023 IN

VERNON-MONASHEE

AREA

H. Sandhu: Today I want to extend my best wishes and congratulations to the

2023 grads from Vernon-Monashee, their families and their amazing

teachers. Next month, on June 15, the first of the grad classes from

Kalamalka Secondary and Charles Bloom will celebrate, and those from

Clarence Fulton, W.L. Seaton, Vernon Christian School and Vernon

Secondary will follow throughout June. Also, students from the Okanagan

college and UBC are achieving great milestones.

[10:20 a.m.]

Dear grads, as you cross the stage this year, I hope you

understand the diploma or degree you receive represents more than years

of formal education. It represents the challenges you faced, the

relationships you built, the skills you honed and the memories you made.

Your efforts are an investment in yourself and in your

future.

I hope you all remember this feeling of accomplishment in your

upcoming ceremony and for the rest of your life. Let the feeling be

light to guide you when things get difficult. You can do anything you

set your mind to.

This graduation season I hope you take a moment to reflect on

those that helped you to get to where you are: your families, your

friends, guidance counsellors, coaches and, of course, your

teachers.

The teachers, support staff and faculties in this province are

strong symbols of strength. They have shown their dedication, patience,

creativity, flexibility and ability to adapt to many challenges that

come their way. I ask you all to reflect on and show gratitude to their

contribution. I hope their display of dedication inspires you as you

face challenges in the future.

You are our future and hope. It is a big world out there. Go out

and seize it. Don’t let anybody or anything stop you from pursuing your

goals.

Please join me to wish all the best and great success to all high

school and post-secondary students from Vernon-Monashee and across the

province.

RAVEN’S NEST

CHILD AND YOUTH ADVOCACY

CENTRE

S. Furstenau: Raven’s Nest is a new child and youth advocacy centre under the

Cowichan Women Against Violence Society in Duncan. Since opening its

doors last spring, Raven’s Nest has supported over 40 survivors and

witnesses of abuse under the age of 19 and their families as they

navigate the criminal justice system.

From the time of disclosure to the closing of their court case,

our systems require that young survivors recount the details of their

assault several times to police, child protection workers, Crown

prosecutors and in front of a judge. Raven’s Nest strives to support

survivors by providing centralized services and advocating for the

rights of children and youth to be at the centre of the justice

process.

The team at Raven’s Nest empowers courageous young survivors and

their caregivers with information and trauma-informed resources,

supporting children and youth along their difficult journeys.

Critically, Raven’s Nest has child-friendly facilities for police

forensic interviews as well as a remote testimony room that is used to

keep children and youth out of the courthouse and away from their

abusers.

Child and youth advocacy centres across the province are working

hard to ensure that young survivors’ needs are prioritized throughout

their journey with the criminal justice system so that survivors and

their families feel heard and know they are not alone. Increasing access

to CYACs like Raven’s Nest is vital to meeting the needs of children in

our communities and supporting them when they need it the

most.

RED DRESS DAY AND ACTION FOR

MISSING AND MURDERED

INDIGENOUS

WOMEN, GIRLS AND TWO-SPIRIT PEOPLE

K. Paddon: May 5 is Red Dress Day and National Day of Awareness for Missing

and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two-Spirit People. I spoke

previously in this House about Red Dress Day, and today I want to take

the time to focus on the missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls

and two-spirit people that those red dresses represent.

Last month the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and

Accountability released data which showed that we lost 184 women and

girls to femicide last year. One in five of them were Indigenous, and

most of them died at the hands of someone they knew.

To the women, girls and families who have been harmed, have faced

loss and grief and who may be at risk, please know: you’re not

alone.

We know that these harms are preventable. Ending this violence

means confronting biases and stereotypes and speaking up when someone is

being treated badly. It means offering help and support if someone is

unsafe or at risk. It also means taking leadership on

solutions.

This is why we’ve opened transition houses and safe homes for

women and children fleeing violence and have provided funding for

culturally responsive sexual assault services across the province. We

implemented A Path Forward in response to the national inquiry into

missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls’ calls for justice,

which includes funding for Indigenous-led anti-violence projects that

expand safety planning in communities. We continue to work on our

gender-based violence action plan. Comprehensive Indigenous consultation

will be beginning shortly, because we know how important it is that we

get this right.

We’re making progress, but there is still so much work to be done.

Too many women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people have been

lost to gender-based violence, and we will continue to work to tackle

the root causes of violence in our communities.

[10:25 a.m.]

If you or someone you know is in danger, there are resources that

can help. You can call or text 1-800-​563-​0808 or email

VictimLinkBC@bc211.ca for immediate, confidential crisis and referral

services.

Oral Questions

SERVICE MODELS FOR

CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT

NEEDS

K. Falcon: After a year of hardship, anxiety and stress for parents of

children with autism, this Premier announced a long-overdue reversal of

the NDP’s planned attempt to strip individualized funding from parents

and force them to transition to a hub model.

However, his actions are not matching his words. This Premier and

his NDP government are continuing with their top-down approach and the

hub model that parents soundly rejected.

Yesterday the First Nations Leadership Council wrote to the

Premier to express what they say is their deep concern with the NDP

decision to plunge forward with this discredited model. From the letter:

“On April 28, 2023, we were suddenly informed that despite the explicit

commitments made in November, the Ministry of Children and Family

Development has progressed with its unilateral plan….”

This stubborn refusal by the NDP to reverse their policy will have

disastrous consequences for parents with autistic kids right across the

province. So my question is this: why has the Premier betrayed First

Nations and parents of autistic kids across the province who campaigned

for over a year to halt this damaging policy?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. Our government believes

very strongly that every parent that has a kid that has special needs,

needs to be supported in the services that are responsive to their

child’s particular needs, what’s working for their kid. That’s why we

committed to parents with individualized funding that they will be able

to continue with the care arrangements they have put in place that are

working for their child.

We also know there are a lot of kids that, for one reason or

another, including that they don’t have a formal autism diagnosis,

aren’t getting that care through the individualized model, which is why

the Minister of Children and Family has been doing work to close that

gap and to work with community.

We have redoubled our pledge to work with community and with First

Nations on this work, and there have been a number of meetings to

further that engagement, to make sure the model we come up with is

evidence-based, is supportive of the unique needs of First Nations kids

as well as kids generally that aren’t getting the support under the

current system. We’re clear about that.

There is, however, a challenge, and that is we also have

obligations to individual First Nations. So when they come to the

minister and they say, “We want to work with you on developing something

that works for our kids on nation,” they have that right to have that

discussion with the minister, and that is a separate process from this

broad provincial strategy that we’re pursuing.

We’re working with the First Nations Leadership Council to clarify

that. We believe we have obligations to these individual nations to have

those discussions. We hope we can clear all of this up, because we all

have the same shared goal, which is making sure these kids have the

supports they need.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, the problem with that answer, Premier, is that’s

diametrically opposite to what they’re actually saying in their

letter.

I remind this House that it was only after a widespread backlash

and the fierce resistance of parents from across the province that this

government eventually backed down under pressure.

The problem we have here is we have the government saying,

publicly, that they would reverse their policy and then, privately,

we’re doing exactly the opposite. This is what else the First Nations

Leadership Council wrote in their letter: “This is in direct violation

of what was agreed to and perpetuates the approach that was explicitly

rejected….”

This NDP decision to plunge forward with their discredited hub

transition model is devastating for families, right across this

province, with neurodiverse kids. And we’re not going to let this

Premier or this government break the word they gave to parents with

autistic kids.

My question is to the Premier. How can anyone have any trust in

this Premier after he announced a reversal of the discredited hub model

only to forge ahead with that model when the political heat had died

down?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is simply not correct. We assured parents that have

individualized funding they’re going to be able to continue with that

funding, those supports that work for their kids.

[10:30 a.m.]

That is my commitment to them. It was one of the first actions I

took after being sworn in as Premier, because it is important to me and

it’s important to our government that parents, especially parents that

have kids that have these unique needs, don’t face additional stress. It

was clear they were under additional stress, when the whole plan was to

provide additional supports to these kids that didn’t have the care, so

reassuring those parents they will be able to continue with those care

arrangements.

There are a huge number of families that are not covered under

that system. Their kid doesn’t have that formal autism diagnosis. They

are under as much stress. They are worried about care for their kids. We

have to provide care for those kids, and we want to do it in a way

that’s respectful of First Nations. We want to do it in a way that’s

evidence-based and responsive to the needs of those families.

That’s why the minister committed. She’s been having meetings with

parents, with key stakeholders and with First Nations on designing that

system. Now there is a separate process. When a nation approaches the

ministry and says, “We want to talk to you about how we deliver care to

our kids in our community that we have jurisdiction over,” the minister,

under our legislation, we believe, has an obligation to engage with that

nation and find a path forward. We’re doing that work as

well.

First of all, any parent that’s watching right now that has a kid

with special needs like this: we are working to make sure, whether you

have individualized funding, that that continues. If you don’t have

access to that program, we know the stress you’re under, and we are

working to deliver a model that will deliver care for you that’s

evidence-based and looks after kids, because that’s what we want to

prioritize here. That’s what we want to deliver for every parent in

British Columbia.

RESIDENCE AND TRAVEL COSTS OF

VANCOUVER–WEST END

MLA

T. Halford: In 2020, the Premier’s liaison for renters, the MLA for

Vancouver–West End, relocated his primary residence from Vancouver to

the Greater Victoria region on Vancouver Island. Since then, he has

charged taxpayers for frequent day trips on Helijet and Harbour Air from

his primary residence in Greater Victoria to his constituency in

Vancouver.

My question is to the Premier. As Vancouver renters are facing the

most expensive rents in the country, does the Premier think it’s

appropriate for his liaison for renters, the MLA for Vancouver–West End,

to expense the cost of frequently commuting from his primary residence

in Greater Victoria to his constituency in Vancouver?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, the member will know that we take the use of public

dollars and how they’re spent very seriously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll take the member’s question on notice and report back to the

House.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: Taxpayers reasonably expect in this province for an MLA to travel

from their constituency to work at the Legislature. But it isn’t

reasonable for an MLA to feel entitled to move their primary residence

to Greater Victoria and then….

Mr. Speaker: Member, the minister has taken that question on notice, so let’s

have a new question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a new question?

T. Halford: It’s a new question.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, that’s fine then. Proceed.

T. Halford: The taxpayers of British Columbia deserve accountability. They

expect the accountability from all of us in this Legislature. We have a

duty to uphold that. Since relocating that primary residence to Greater

Victoria, the taxpayers have absorbed $70,000 in expenses.

In the Premier’s decision to appoint this MLA as his liaison for

renters, how could this Premier justify that?

Mr. Speaker: Member, it’s the same question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

EDUCATION FUNDING

A. Olsen: During last fall’s legislative session, the now Minister for

Post-Secondary Education said that our children are “the most precious

resource we have.”

I agree with the minister on that, but this government’s actions

do not reflect the rhetoric. The reality is that public schools in

British Columbia have been chronically underfunded for years, with

school boards across the province continuing to face budget shortfalls

as a result of this government’s policies.

Vancouver school board is facing a $5.9 million shortfall this

year, forcing the board to choose between actions like combining high

school classes together, moving or discontinuing valuable educational

programs or relocating students to cover the deficit.

[10:35 a.m.]

The much smaller Saanich school district is looking for $1.7

million, likely to be funded out of reserves.

This so-called progressive government promised to do better for

our children than the 16 years that they complained about the previous

government.

My question is to the Premier. Will he reverse the more than two

decades of underfunding in our public education system?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member for his question. The member will know,

and we have and numerous times in this House spoken about, the

importance of education for our kids. I know the Minister of Education

finds that the most important role she has, both as a mom as well as a

Minister of Education, is making sure that all kids in our communities

have the funding that’s needed.

The member will know that funding per student has gone up by 24

percent since 2017. That’s a significant increase in funding. We’ve seen

significant funding for building new schools, making sure that we have

educators available, and we’re going to continue to do that, because we

know investments in our children are investments in the

future.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: As we just heard in this response, the government has continually

claimed that they fixed the problems in public education, but the

reality many school districts are facing in this province reflect a

completely different reality. It’s essentially an austerity system in

our public education system.

We often hear about the record investments that have been made

under this B.C. NDP government, but those are disingenuous. The court

required many of those investments to be made.

A new agreement with teachers — an important investment,

absolutely — does nothing to support replacing the aging tech and

teaching materials that many of our school districts are facing and many

other structural deficits that they’re facing every single budget year,

including this year.

In 2018, this government’s review panel report recommended changes

to the funding model. In the first couple of years, there was a flurry

of activity, but in the last couple of years, there has been silence.

Nothing in the minister’s mandate letter. Nothing in the service plan

about those recommendations. It appears to not be a priority for this

Premier.

The members of this government know we need to do better, given

how frequently they eviscerated the official opposition now for

underfunding education when they sat on this side of the House. The

needs of students and teachers need to be put first.

We’ve seen this Premier roll out the Homes for People plan and the

jobs for workers plan. When are we going to see a public education for

students plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There was a lot there. I want to thank the member for the

question.

Yes, we’re very proud of the Homes for People plan we’ve launched.

We’re very proud of our future-ready plan that was announced just

recently, making sure that all people in British Columbia — young, those

that are transitioning in the workplace — have the opportunities to get

the skills they need to be able to be competitive in the

market.

I think it’s important for the member to know, which I’ve already

highlighted, that we’ve increased the budget for education per-student

funding by 24 percent since 2017. I’m glad he highlighted the agreement

we had with teachers, because those investments are about making sure we

support our educators to make sure that we are able to provide the

highest level of education.

The member will also know that when we formed government, we were

the second worst, when it came to funding, in the country. Now we are

the second best. Our goal is always to continue to improve

that.

IMPLEMENTATION OF

HEALTH PROFESSIONS LEGISLATION

AND CONSULTATION BY GOVERNMENT

J. Rustad: As I mentioned in my introduction, in the gallery today with the

health care professionals that are here…. I just thought I would

highlight some of the people that are here, that come as far away as

Nelson, come from across the Lower Mainland, across the Island, that

include many doctors, family doctors, radiologists, surgeons,

naturopaths, other people — for example, traditional medicine — many

nurses, occupational therapists, phys­ical therapists, and so many

more. There are many outside as well.

They’ve all come here today because they have a concern with Bill

36. They have a concern with our health care system. They’re here today

to express those concerns. In particular, they’re concerned about the

privacy of individuals and their patients’ records.

[10:40 a.m.]

They’re concerned about the ability to be able to provide

professional medical advice based on their experience. They’re concerned

about, of course, the crisis in B.C.’s health care system. They think

Bill 36 is a massive overreach by government that will only cause

additional problems in our health care system.

I’ve asked the Minister of Health to pause the implementation of

Bill 36 and to do a comprehensive engagement with the health care

professionals across this province.

To the Premier: since the minister won’t commit to doing this,

will you instruct the Minister of Health to stop the implementation of

Bill 36 until a full and comprehensive engagement with health care

professionals across B.C. has been undertaken?

Hon. A. Dix: Bill 36 represented the first major amendment to the Health

Professions Act in three decades. In 2018, I asked for an investigation

and review by world-leading expert Harry Cayton into the Health

Professions Act. Subsequent to that, members of the New Democratic

caucus, myself, members from the official opposition caucus, members of

the Green caucus came together to review that report and to make

recommendations, all of which were reflected in Bill 36.

That process involved extraordinary public engagement. More than

4,300 people participated in that public engagement, 71 percent of whom

were health professionals. Subsequent to that, we had an engagement with

First Nations because in the midst of that process, we had the In

Plain Sight report, and we had a significant requirement under

reconciliation to engage with First Nations.

Subsequent to that, we had a 47½-hour debate in this Legislature,

the second-longest debate on any bill in this century.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Let’s hear the answer, please.

Minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: The legislation protects patients, em­powers patients,

provides protection when people bring forward complaints, including

supports. I’d just say to the members opposite that our focus — the

focus of the committee, the focus of the opposition and the Green Party

that worked on that committee — was protecting patients. That’s exactly

what the legislation did.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Members will come to order. Members.

Minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: I can tell you that the consultation we did, unprecedented in the

history of the province, did not involve people yelling at each

other.

I would say this. The concerns raised by the hon. member,

including concerns about access to patient records, reflect areas that

are absolutely unchanged from the present legislation. I suggest, in his

decades in the Legislature, he might have raised those concerns if he’d

had them at the time.

The fact of the matter is there is no change. When an independent

investigator investigates, for example, a concern around sexual abuse,

they have a right under limited circumstances to access patient records.

That’s what it is now, and that’s what it will be after Bill 36 is

proclaimed.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, supplemen­tal.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. The engagement that he talks

about, this broad engagement, did not include the full scope of what’s

in Bill 36. That engagement with the opposition members did not include

the full scope of what is in that bill.

There is a crisis in our health care system today. These

professionals have taken time out of their profession, away from being

able to provide the services. They have taken time away from their

family. They’ve travelled across the province to be here to express

their concern because they have a legitimate concern about our health

care system in the province of British Columbia. They have a legitimate

concern for their patients.

To me, to the thousands of people that signed the petition I will

be introducing after question period today…. They have expressed these

concerns. They want answers. They are angry. I can tell you the health

professionals here want to be part of the answer. They want to be part

of being able to provide better services. They don’t want this

government to be making them an enemy.

[10:45 a.m.]

Two parts to this question. The first is an ask of the minister to

meet with these health care professionals that are here, and the ones

that are outside, to be able to answer questions they have around this.

But most importantly, there is a large list of questions these health

care providers have gone through. This is a very large bill. They have

gone through it in detail. They’ve provided these questions to the

minister.

I want to ask the Premier if he will commit today to asking his

minister to answer these questions so these health care providers can be

fully engaged and to pause going forward with Bill 36 until that full

engagement can be had and we can assure the people in this province that

our health care system will be improved and not damaged by Bill

Mr. Speaker: People in the gallery, please be careful. Don’t make any responses

to any questions or answers.

Hon. A. Dix: This piece of legislation, which reflects the recommendation of

the In Plain Sight report and which reflects the

recommendations of the all-party committee that reviewed it, takes a

proactive approach to the elimination of discrimination in our health

care system.

Anybody who read the In Plain Sight report and doesn’t

think that action should be taken urgently…. This is action that’s been

taken after five years of consultation of thousands of health

professionals. My strong view is that a bill that empowers the public,

that says when there’s a contrary action — not when there’s a complaint,

when there’s a contrary action — there should be transparency for

patients in our province…. That’s long overdue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. A. Dix: When you have a bill that takes proactive action against

discrimination after the In Plain Sight report, after

significant consultation with First Nations under both the

reconciliation provisions and the In Plain Sight working

group….

It’s time to act against discrimination in health care. It’s time

to act to protect patients. It’s time to act to bring the bill into

the…. That is why we did five years of consultation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. A. Dix: When we had those meetings together, the opposition parties and

ourselves….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. A. Dix: It wasn’t one side yelling at the other side, one side trying to

prove that they can be more objectionable than another party. That’s

what we did in B.C. We put together a system.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order. Members will come to order

now.

Members, please.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. A. Dix: All of that consultation took place, I think, in an atmosphere of

respect — five years of it, thousands of health professionals, full

involvement of the opposition, full involvement of Indigenous people.

We’re proud of the legislation, and we’re going to continue to work on

its implementation.

Since we passed the bill, there have been more than 50 meetings

with representative groups. We’re going to continue to do the work and

continue to improve protections for patients and the regulation for

health professionals in B.C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Let’s listen to the question, please. Let’s hear the

question.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

AND IMPACT ON

BUSINESSES

R. Merrifield: Yesterday, while the Jobs Minister continued with more talk about

more discussions about more meetings, small businesses endured another

day of rampant crime and vandalism. Imagine being Nick Wei of Social

Pets in Kelowna, waking up to destroyed windows and constant vandalism.

Over 30 businesses along Pandosy Street in Kelowna recently suffered

losses in the tens of thousands.

Will the minister stand up today, put an end to the empty talk,

endless discussions and absolute rhetoric and actually take action to

help small businesses in B.C.?

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. There is no

doubt that a number of businesses are faced with significant challenges.

We’ve seen global inflation, seen tremendous economic uncertainty, and

we have taken action to support small businesses.

[10:50 a.m.]

During the pandemic, we stood up almost half a billion — in fact,

more than half a billion — dollars. That shows the priority that small

businesses have to this government. It’s so important. When we put in

programming for small businesses, the priority is to ensure that the

programming is what they need, that it’s what they want and that it’s

going to have impact.

A great example of this is when we worked with restaurants,

talking to industry and working with the people that are impacted. We

put in two supports that were very, very beneficial. One is ensuring

that restaurants had access to wholesale pricing for liquor. That

benefited every restaurant in our province. We also brought in a cap to

fee-delivery services.

These are examples of working directly with industry to hear

what’s important to them. We’re doing that work right now. We’ll be

rolling out programming soon. Small businesses are deeply important to

us.

RELEASE OF B.C. HOUSING AUDIT REPORT

P. Milobar: This government is developing quite a pattern of not wanting

proper scrutiny and questioning of things they’re bringing forward. As

we heard with Bill 36, 400 sections have closure brought on by this

government, regardless of debate time leading up to that. In fact, our

motion to refer those 400 sections to the Health Committee to have a

proper review of those 400 sections was quashed by this

government.

It’s not just these types of things that this government wants to

quash. We heard two months ago that the B.C. Housing forensic audit had

been completed — two months. As much as the government wants to try to

say that they’re committed to full disclosure, it has been two months of

redaction after redaction and no release and no release date.

Now, yesterday I asked the Premier if he would commit to releasing

the report before his budget estimates start next week. Unfortunately,

the Housing Minister answered and decided to deflect and use the same

language again. No commitment — convenient, given that the Housing

Minister’s budget estimates are now over.

The Premier full well knows that budget estimates would be the

best way to have full transparency and full questioning of the forensic

audit of B.C. Housing, especially given that he was the Housing Minister

for the better part of two years. Will the Premier commit today to

releasing the full, unredacted report, the forensic audit of B.C.

Housing, in time for his estimates starting next week?

Hon. D. Eby: Two issues raised in the member’s question. I’ll take them both in

order. One is on Bill 36. I understand the opposition now is taking the

position that they weren’t involved in all of the engagement the Health

Minister laid out over five years on developing this work. I’ll say

this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t agree with the leader of the Conservative Party on his

position, but at least I know what it is. When it comes to the

opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: The opposition wants to have it both ways on so many different

issues. They need to take positions.

Now, on the issue of housing, where they also take multiple

positions…. First of all, on the B.C. Housing audit: absolutely, I

understand it’s important for the members to have a chance to ask

questions on this report. We’ll release it. I committed to this House to

table it in this place and to table as much of the report as the law

allows us to provide to them and to the public and to have ample

opportunity for them to ask questions about it. We have a really serious

housing issue in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: I think, on the theme of the opposition and housing and clarity of

position, to have the opposition standing against basic ideas like

allowing someone that has a single-family home to develop more than one

unit on that property…. For them to stand up in opposition to that, the

most affordable kind of housing that can be built, for them to oppose

that, for them to vote against the housing targets before they voted for

them….

The lack of clarity from this opposition on C-36, on housing, on

so many issues, like addiction and mental health…. I look forward to

them developing their policies so we can have a real debate in this

place.

[10:55 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Let’s correct what the Premier was trying to convey to the public.

There has been no ambiguity by us on Bill 36. We voted against Bill 36.

There were 400 clauses that this government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

P. Milobar: …invoked closure on. And news flash…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: …for the Premier. The opposition was not part of the drafting of

the actual legislation of Bill 36. The first time we saw it was when it

came to this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, Members.

P. Milobar: Once again, the Premier is being evasive with his answer around

the B.C. Housing audit. He just committed to tabling it in this House.

The problem is he wouldn’t give a date. Well, it’s pretty simple. We

have four sitting days left after today, and then it’s the

fall.

The question was around tabling it so we could deal with it during

budget estimates for the Premier that start next Wednesday. So will the

Premier be releasing it on Monday next week, Tuesday next week, or is

his intention to table it in this House but not until the

fall?

Hon. D. Eby: Two issues raised by the member in that question. On the issue of

tabling the audit, absolutely.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: The audit will be tabled in this House. I’ve committed to this

House so the members will have the opportunity to ask questions about it

this session.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Members, calm down. Calm down.

Hon. D. Eby: On the second….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: I know the members don’t want me to get to the second issue, but I

will get there. On the second question, the members did, in fact, vote

against Bill 36, but of course that was after they voted for it at

second reading.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question period is over. Members.

Members, come to order. Members, calm down. Let’s be

respectful.

Petitions

I. Paton: I rise today to present a petition in regard to dredging issues in my

riding of Delta South. Twenty million tonnes of sediment wash down the

Fraser River annually. In my riding, at the end of the drainage journey,

there are secondary channels, including Ladner Reach, Canoe Pass, that are

home to fishing marinas, float home communities, recreational

boating…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

I. Paton: …and commercial businesses who all use the river to maintain their way

of life. Without dredging….

Mr. Speaker: Member, you have tabled the petition. That’s fine. Thank

you.

I. Paton: The amount of sediment and dredging needs to be dealt with in my

riding of Delta South immediately.

S. Furstenau: I rise to present a petition to protect the old growth, signed by more

than 450 residents of the Kootenays, asking this government to implement the

recommendations of the strategic review panel and protect all remaining old

growth in B.C.

J. Rustad: I rise to present a petition — signatures of over 17,500 individuals

across this province, many of them health care workers, expressing concern

about Bill 36 and wanting to see Bill 36 repealed.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call continued debate of the Committee of Supply

for the Ministry of Finance.

[11:00 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

Hon. B. Bailey: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bailey: I have a friend in the House. I’d like the House to join me in

welcoming Anne Barnes, who’s the vice-president of Chubb International. It’s

not very often that I have a friend from home who is here in the

House.

Would you please join me in making her feel most welcome.

Debate Continued

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $338,869,000

(continued) .

Hon. K. Conroy: Before we get started, I just want to let the member know that I

have with me my deputy minister, Heather Wood, and also Steve Hawkshaw,

the senior ED for the tax policy branch.

We’re ready to answer questions.

P. Milobar: My first question…. I recognize we don’t have GCPE here anymore or

PSA, possibly. One thing that has kind of come to light over the last

couple of days — and again, I do apologize for not bringing this up

during that

section — is the ever-evolving state of AI and how that

starts to play into things, especially as it relates to things like

ChatGPT and stuff of that nature.

Is the government utilizing AI within the PSA or within GCPE

moving forward?

Hon. K. Conroy: I have to say. As a cattle breeder, whenever people talk about AI,

I always think of something else. I always think: “Why is he asking

about AI?”

Just to let the member know, we will get that information for him.

The people are…. We just don’t want to wait until they come or they can

get that information. I know time is of the essence for the

member.

We will get that information to the member in writing. It will be

about AI, as he has asked.

[11:05 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Just one other quick question for the minister. In terms of the

carbon credits…. The Green Party had a quick pass with a few things with

carbon credits. I just want a clarification.

Again, the minister, in her answer to the Green Party, had

referenced an international award that the government had been

recognized for. Just for the minister’s information, that award was

actually…. The timeline of that award and the adjudication of the award

was for things being done under the previous government. It actually got

presented to the new government as the changeover came.

I just want to make sure credit is done for things like

international climate awards. To my recollection, that’s the only award

that has been granted since 2017.

What I just wanted to clarify is…. The minister had said, when I

was questioning on Bill 10, that carbon offsets will be based on an

international market price. They will be open that way. However, when I

was in the Environment estimates and talking to the Environment Minister

about the same thing a week or so earlier, he couldn’t imagine…. I’m

quoting: “I can’t imagine a situation in which those credits could be

traded internationally, because they’ll be specific to a British

Columbia system.”

Can the minister clarify, under the new OBPS system…? Is the

Minister of Environment correct that it’ll be an internal credit trading

system, or is the Finance Minister anticipating that it’ll still be an

international carbon credit system?

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify, I think the member said that I had said that it

was international. Or is the member referring to comments that the

Minister of Environment made in his estimates? What I’ve said all along

is…. It’s a market price based in B.C.

P. Milobar: In Bill 10, I had questioned the minister around the minimum being

set, the minimum rate. Is it somewhere in this bill? I haven’t been able

to find what the compliance credit has been costing an industrial

operation. Or can it just be what the open market trading system is? In

other words, will the industry be able to buy a $15 carbon credit to

offset $170 in carbon tax?

That’s what I had asked. The minister said: “Compliance units can

either offset units or earned credits. We don’t set the price, because

they’re bought and sold on the market. It’s done by the market.” I took

that to mean an international market. That’s why I’m asking for

clarification in terms of how that would play out.

The Environment Minister, when I was asking about buying offsets

to get them to the threshold, and selling those offshore to other

jurisdictions and not just within B.C., said it would be within a B.C.

trading system and that they wouldn’t be able to sell them or buy them

from offshore.

I’m just trying to get clarification around the intention of this

new credit-trading system — if it’s going to be a strictly internal

trading system or if it’s going to be buying and selling on the global

market of credits.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As the Minister of Environment said and I said, it’s likely to be

a market price within B.C.

P. Milobar: And has the Finance Ministry done any work or is intending…? How

will B.C. Hydro fit into this system in terms of credits, in terms of…?

Obviously, it’s considered green energy. These credits are all based

around energy industry, electrification of industry, reducing emissions

— all of those types of things. But will B.C. Hydro have a part to play

in this? Will they be considered a net contributor of

credits?

In other words, will they be able to beef up their balance sheet

by being a massive producer of carbon credits to sell to other industry,

or will they just be considered out of the picture based on their

current operations?

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify for the member, the climate award that I

was referring to was given to the government of B.C. on an innovative

CleanBC program designated to reduce industry emissions and maintain

global competitiveness.

It was an international award presented by the Under2 Coalition

during COP26 in Glasgow, which was in November 2021. It was awarding the

recognition of the work that this government had done under CleanBC. I’m

not sure which award the member is referring to, but what I was

referring to was the international award that B.C. was recognized with

in 2021.

As far as the question on B.C. Hydro, consultations are going to

be underway soon.

P. Milobar: I guess the concern is that this has the very real potential to

dramatically change B.C. Hydro’s performance or not, if they are

considered to be well under any emission targets and are deemed to be

someone that can sell credits back into the market based on how they

operate, being hydroelectric power and not, obviously, coal or natural

gas power. That could dramatically change their financial

situation.

So has there been much thought given by the government as to how

that’s going to unfold, given that this is all supposed to be in place

in the next ten months? By the sounds of it, discussions haven’t really

started with industry meaningfully yet in terms of what the final

program looks like. It hasn’t started with Hydro yet, and we have ten

months to go.

I referenced this in Bill 10, and I’ve referenced it in

Environment estimates previously as well. The last time industry was

working with government to have their benchmark system put in place, it

was several years behind by the time it was finally implemented and

starting to roll out. Now it’s only been in place for a year and a half,

two years, and it’s being replaced yet again with a new system in ten

months that those discussions haven’t started with.

So what is the timeline to not only engage, then, with B.C. Hydro,

but actually, the expectation to have something in place in terms of how

they will be treated under the new OBPS system?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: No, of course, we’re not just starting consultations. We have been

consulting about the parameters of the made-in-B.C. OBPS for some time.

Consultations are happening now about the specific implementations. Like

I said in Bill 10, I’m confident that the system will be in place by

April 1, 2024.

When designing the system, we, of course, are looking at the

impact to all companies.

[11:20 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, given that this is, essentially, at the core of it, going to

be a tax policy decision around carbon taxation and how it is or isn’t

charged for large industrial emitters, will the final arbiter of what

this system all looks like, the person with the final say, be the

Environment Minister or the Finance Minister?

If there is a difference of opinion around how this should roll

out, who will actually be the final person to authorize, have the true

authority, in terms of signing off on what the system is or

isn’t?

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s a joint decision, and we are working in

collaboration.

P. Milobar: I get that, and that’s wonderful when everyone’s on the same page

or in agreement. But, ultimately, one would assume…. Now, I get that

with the LNG project, the signatories that were signed off for the

province were the Energy and Mines Minister, Minister Mungall, at the

time; the Finance Minister, Minister James, at the time; and the current

Environment Minister — all the three signatories to the LNG

agreement.

However, in terms of this new system, in terms of the parameters

of the agreement, who would, ultimately, take responsibility for what

the rules are, how it will operate, how the credits will be calculated

or not?

It is a tax measure. So if there is a disagreement on how things

should be included or not in the new system, will the Finance Minister

have the final authority, or would the Environment Minister have the

final authority?

Hon. K. Conroy: I believe we will work it out together.

P. Milobar: The reason I ask is, in the space of a month or so, during budget

estimates and bill debate on Bill 10, committee stage…. Slightly

different views on the market for carbon credits, and it’s an important

part of it.

The minister made it very clear that it’s an open market, that it

should be a domestic, open market. The Environment Minister also agreed

it would be an in-B.C. market, so we’ve got that

clarification.

However, when I was questioning with the Minister of Environment,

it was along the lines of: it’s not much of an incentive if you can pay,

as I used with the Finance Minister, $15 for a credit to offset $170 of

carbon taxation. Of course, you’re going to buy credits all day long and

just keep doing what you’re doing. You’re not going to spend the money

to, necessarily, drive down your emissions. Ultimately, I think we want

people to drive down their emissions. That’s the goal of

this.

I think we’re all in agreement with that. We were the party that

brought in carbon tax in the first place, much to the objection of the

NDP at the time. But the Environment Minister seemed to agree that the

concept would need to be that the price of a carbon credit, although it

will be an internally B.C.-traded credit, needs to be close to aligning

with the current carbon tax pricing of any given year, or there’s not

much incentive for industry to actually drive down their

emissions.

They’ll just go out and buy from other people that have the

credits, which ties into why I was asking about B.C. Hydro. If they have

a dearth of credits sitting there that they can sell to help other

emitters offset, that creates a problem.

It’s good for the B.C. Hydro balance sheet, potentially. It does

nothing for our current environment and our current emission profile.

It’s just status quo. People just pay B.C. Hydro, basically, a premium,

and they keep operating the way they are.

That is why it’s important, I think, for the public to understand

who ultimately has the final say on this system. There could be

significant difference of opinion when it comes to whether or not there

are going to be minimum caps set — in other words, government

interfering in the carbon-offset pricing system and putting in minimum

pricing — or if it will truly be an open-market pricing system where

industry and those holding credits will decide how much they’re going to

charge and trade back and forth to offset their $170 carbon

taxation.

Could the minister provide more clarity on who would be the

ultimate decision-maker for the OBPS system?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I guess it’s really hard for the member to comprehend, but we

actually will work together to come up with the decisions that need to

be made to ensure that emissions are brought down, because that’s what

this is about. It’s not either-or. We are going to work together. We

have been doing that all along, and we will continue to do

that.

P. Milobar: Well, again, I can appreciate that the ministers work well

together. I’m not doubting that or disputing that in the least. You

don’t need a contract when everything’s going well, either, out in the

world. If two business people are getting along and working fine, the

contract is somewhat irrelevant if everything and everyone are agreeing

how things can operate. But the lawyers and the contract start to become

pretty important when there’s a disagreement on opinion.

We have 12 short months to come up with a system, a system that is

going to dramatically change, a system that will take current industry

emitters that are paying $30 a tonne in carbon tax right now to paying

zero, while the rest of the population is watching their carbon tax

increase in their households.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for those homeowners to understand

who the actual, finite decision-maker is. It shouldn’t be that difficult

of a thing. There is a statutory requirement or not. One would assume,

given that it’s a tax measure, that ultimately it would be the Finance

Minister. I don’t understand why that is something that doesn’t want to

be shared with the public. The public expects that government ministers

would work together, and things of that nature.

These credits get very complicated, very quickly. Something as

basic as how the pricing structure will work — whether or not there will

be government intervention to put in a minimum price versus a true open

market, even if it’s an internal-to-B.C. open market — is a dramatically

different shift on the cost situation, and more importantly, the

emission profile, of our province. It’s one thing to bring in a system

where everyone just starts trading credits back and forth, and we

haven’t taken one emission out of the system. But on paper, it looks

like we drove our emissions down, because somebody that currently has

the ability to sell credits is now selling them and

offsetting.

That is why we’re trying to determine who the actual

decision-maker is. Now, it seems strange that the minister doesn’t want

to just acknowledge that, in all likelihood, the Minister of Finance

would actually be in charge of signing off on tax policy.

Again, will Crown corporations, any of the Crown corporations, be

able to hold or buy or sell carbon credits under the OBPS?

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s all under discussion.

P. Milobar: So the government hasn’t determined at this point, then, if B.C.

Ferries has to be carbon neutral. If they’re not, then they have to

start buying credits, or would they be blocked from buying carbon

credits so that the government could be a leader and lead by example and

say: “We are going to retrofit regardless and drive our emission profile

down to what it needs to be”? B.C. Hydro, we were having questions

around….

The minister is saying that there have been no decisions made on

how the government intends to handle Crown corporations and their

emission profile, and their management of carbon credits or not, to be

under whatever their emission profile needs to be, despite the fact that

it’s essentially government-controlled operations.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Stringency decisions are expected soon, and we’re working on

those. Our OBPS will be evaluated regularly, because we have to meet not

only our own CleanBC targets but the federal government stringency

requirements.

I think that the member keeps referring to us as who’s

responsible, but I think British Columbians would derive considerable

comfort knowing that two ministers are actually working together

collaboratively to make decisions in the best interest of British

Columbians. I think people in British Columbia would like to see that

and would appreciate that. I know that that’s our goal, and that’s how

we will continue to work together.

P. Milobar: The question was just around who has statutory authority,

essentially. That’s fine.

The reality is that this is critical. If you’re an emitter right

now — and you’re under the threshold that the government had previously

set for heavy industry, for your rate class or type of industry — you’re

paying a net $30 of carbon tax. That will go to zero under the OBPS,

assuming you’re still under the threshold.

[11:35 a.m.]

In fact, if you’re under that threshold, you’re going to have

credits to sell back. So that operator who currently has an emissions

profile of X will still have X, after this new system comes in, of

emissions going into our atmosphere and will not only be saving $30 a

tonne in carbon tax but will have a profit centre of their credits that

they can sell.

It is a very critical question, moving forward, on how this is all

going to roll out, if we’re talking about reducing emissions and not

just a shell game of moving dollars around. Instead of the government

collecting the money, the emission profile should be the final target on

this.

Has there been any change, or will there be any change, to the

carbon intensity or rating that the government uses as they decide what

a tonne of GHG emissions is, to trigger carbon tax payments? Those can

change from time to time. Has there been any significant change in that?

Is there any contemplated, moving forward, in what would qualify as a

tonne of GHG emissions?

Hon. K. Conroy: I think what the member is getting at is the carbon intensity of

different fuels. There are small technical adjustments made from time to

time. As we get better data on the particular carbon intensity of the

fuels in B.C., we’ll get that better data and be able to make those

changes. Those small technical changes will likely occur over

time.

P. Milobar: As we move to a $170 carbon tax — which is in line with what the

federal government has brought in — it’s going to happen in a very short

time frame. It’s only a few years’ worth of time. Most of that time is

during this current fiscal plan we’re looking at, in the next three

years — well, at least about $45 a tonne in that time frame.

What has the government projected that, at $170 a tonne, the

carbon tax revenues are likely to be, as a forward look?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is an estimation, because people’s behaviour changes, etc.,

but the total carbon tax revenue by 2030 is estimated to be at $4.5

billion.

P. Milobar: What is the anticipated drop, then, from industry to get down to

that number?

I ask that question because at our current rate of emissions,

which is at about 43 million tonnes, that would generate about $7.3

billion at $170. I’m glad to hear the number dropped significantly, but

even at 30 tonnes of tax being collected, that’s $5 billion. So the

minister is suggesting that we’re going to go from 43, which we’ve been

hovering at almost every year now since 2017, to plummet down well under

the 30s — which seems like a massive drop considering we’ve been in a

holding pattern for the better part of 20 years — over the next six

years.

How much of that drop in emissions is anticipated, has been

calculated, to happen because of the OBPS? Is the anticipation that it

will be an actual drop in emissions or a ramping up of carbon credit

trading instead? In other words, we’ll have the same emissions actually

happening in real life, but on paper, it will be a trade-off?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We expect a reduction of about $1.3 billion, and that’s due to

people and companies, corporations, changing their behaviour, reducing

their emissions. It does respond to people responding to the carbon tax

emissions, lowering them in B.C., and it’s in line with the CleanBC

targets.

We know that people are already starting to make personal choices

of how they reduce their habits and reduce their emissions. Companies

are doing that as well. We’ll obviously see a reduction, because this is

about incentive to lower emissions.

P. Milobar: Just one last question in estimates. I’ll thank, in advance, for

the time and the meandering around a bit and the various agencies that

came in to help as well.

[11:50 a.m.]

I guess the concern I have around that is that this is the first

time the Ministry of Finance — well, in a while, anyways — has synced

their revenue projections exactly with CleanBC and the 40 percent drop

anticipated by 2030.

I say that because I asked year after year after year, as the

Environment critic, pointing out that the Finance carbon tax revenue

projections were actually showing an increasing emissions profile on the

revenue side of what they were collecting off of carbon tax, at the same

time as the Environment Minister was talking about CleanBC bringing down

emissions.

When I would ask the Environment Minister, he’d say: “Well, come

talk to the Finance Minister.” When I’d talk to the Finance Minister,

the two were not joint. One was a pure look on the estimation and the

revenue side of what to reasonably expect for tax revenues, as it should

be with the Finance Ministry. The other was, basically, almost an

aspirational goal by the Environment Minister on where they wanted to

see emission profiles go. But wanting and reality are two different

things.

It’s more of a statement, I guess, than a question. It’s just that

it’s concerning, given that we’re sitting…. Even if you look at the

current revenue projections for next year and the following year…. In

the service plan in front of us this year, based on a straight

calculation, we were at about 44 megatonnes last year of carbon

emissions that we were collecting carbon tax on.

This year it’s at 43-point-something. But next year’s revenue

projection has us magically dropping down to 38. Again, it seems like a

very steep drop all of a sudden, to simply match up with CleanBC, versus

the revenue projections that the ministry has historically

done.

I do hope that the ministry’s revenue projections, again, have

significant consequence to the overall budget document, in terms of how

bond-rating agencies view us, and others. If we’re lowballing potential

revenues on something like carbon tax to try to prop up an environmental

message box versus what will really happen, and if we start to exceed

those revenues, the direct correlation is that our emissions are not

dropping anywhere near the rate that the government is

championing.

I will certainly be keeping an eye on those revenue projections,

moving forward, in quarterly updates, because as soon as there’s a

glitch in them, rest assured that we’ll be sure to point that

out.

I do thank the minister for the time. I look forward to Bill 5

this afternoon.

Hon. K. Conroy: I would just like to, obviously, thank all the different critics

who came in and asked questions.

I also want to make an acknowledgment of the staff who have

supported us in these last four days. It was a considerable amount of

time that went into preparing the many binders of information. People

came from all over the province. We had Crown representation here, as

well as all the many other ministry staff.

I just want to make an acknowledgment to all the ministry staff,

the Crown’s and everybody who came and helped out, because it was a

considerable amount of work. I want to thank them all for their

efforts.

Vote 26: ministry operations, $338,869,000 — approved.

Vote 27: government communications and public engagement, $29,341,000

— approved.

Vote 28: B.C. Public Service Agency, $63,385,000 —

approved.

Vote 29: benefits and other employment costs, $1,000 —

approved.

[11:55 a.m.]

ESTIMATES:

MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND

DEBT

Vote 47: management of public funds and debt, $1,308,553,000 —

approved.

ESTIMATES:

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 48: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs,

$5,500,000,000 — approved.

Vote 49: capital funding, $4,539,987,000 — approved.

Vote 50: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 —

approved.

Vote 51: allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 —

approved.

Vote 52: tax transfers, $3,159,000,000 — approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and

completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Bailey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:58 p.m.

Copyright © 2023 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.