First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, March 31, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 28

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

Speaker’s Statement

Rules and Guidelines for Introductions by Members and Members’ Statements

Members’ Statements

Credential Recognition Process for Health Care Professionals

Bruce Banman

Food Security and Local Producers

Harwinder Sandhu

Canadian Ski Patrol

Sheldon Clare

Downtown Eastside Support Services and Community Work

Amshen / Joan Phillip

Spirit of the North Healthcare Foundation

Kiel Giddens

Affordable Housing Projects in Greater Victoria

Nina Krieger

Oral Questions

Carbon Tax Policies

John Rustad

Hon. David Eby

Interprovincial Trade and Tax Policies

Peter Milobar

Hon. Diana Gibson

Child Protection System and Safety of Youth in Care

Rob Botterell

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Chief Executive Officer at Provincial Health Services Authority

Sheldon Clare

Hon. Josie Osborne

[Question ruled out of order.]

Gavin Dew

Hon. Niki Sharma

[Question ruled out of order.]

Mandeep Dhaliwal

Government Spending Priorities and Premier’s Office Funding

Reann Gasper

Hon. Lisa Beare

Payments to Highway Project Workers and Government Management of Transportation Projects

Harman Bhangu

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Actions of Premier

Trevor Halford

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report, Ministry of Forests: Calculating Carbon Projections , March 2025

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole

Bill 6 — Supply Act (N o . 1), 2025

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Peter Milobar

Reporting of Bills

Bill 6 — Supply Act (N o . 1), 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Supply Act (N o . 1), 2025

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Peter Milobar

Rob Botterell

On the amendment

Rob Botterell

Peter Milobar

Hon. Adrian Dix

On the main motion

Hon. Adrian Dix

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

Bill 3 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2025

Bill 4 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025

Bill 6 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2025

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

On the main motion (continued)

Hon. Adrian Dix

Elenore Sturko

Sheldon Clare

Jeremy Valeriote

Trevor Halford

Korky Neufeld

David Williams

Ward Stamer

Sharon Hartwell

Kiel Giddens

Jordan Kealy

Claire Rattée

Harman Bhangu

Hon Chan

Gavin Dew

Brennan Day

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure (continued)

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Trevor Halford

Misty Van Popta

Gavin Dew

Hon Chan

Steve Kooner

Brennan Day

Korky Neufeld

Bruce Banman

Sheldon Clare

Reporting of Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport (continued)

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Jeremy Valeriote

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Food (continued)

Ian Paton

Hon. Lana Popham

Kiel Giddens

Larry Neufeld

Sheldon Clare

Ward Stamer

Gavin Dew

Anna Kindy

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Misty Van Popta

Trevor Halford

Committee of the Whole

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Peter Milobar

Jeremy Valeriote

Rob Botterell

Monday, march 31, 2025

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. David Eby : We are joined by someone in the gallery here today who has contributed to British

Columbia in many different roles. He’s a former union staffer; a political organizer,

certainly; and also a public servant, a political staffer. Regardless of the role,

Clay Suddaby has really gone above and beyond for the people of British Columbia.

That’s what drives him and his work. I’ve worked with him personally, and I think

he’s a wonderful man. His gain in terms of retiring from the public service this week

is our loss, without a question. I understand that he and his partner, Sam, are going

to be touring around the east coast in a car, having a great time. I’m sure she’ll

be glad to have him back.

Thank you, Sam, for sending us an angel.

Thank you, Clay, for all your work for the people of B.C., and I hope you enjoy a

well-earned retirement.

Brennan Day : I would just like to introduce my wife of almost 15 years, the love of 25, and my

seven-year-old son, Lachlan, to the gallery tonight.

I told him I would not embarrass him, so I will say, for the record, he’s very disappointed

that we do not have a Lego store in the capital region.

Please let the House make them all feel very welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg : Members from Axon Canada are in the House today. They, on a daily basis, support

our B.C. police officers across here.

I know firsthand how integral police innovation and modernization is, and I’m happy

to introduce them to the Legislature, especially Dan Malo, who is the former assistant

commissioner of the RCMP at E division, my old boss; Bruce Chapman, the former president

of the Police Association in Ontario; Adam Hassan, one of the principal engineers

of digital evidence management solution; David Volpato, a former Canadian police officer;

and Joshua Johnson.

I hope the House will make them welcome.

Pete Davis : Today is a big day in my life. My oldest child turns 21. Man, that makes me feel

old. But I’d just like to wish my daughter, Kaylee, a happy 21st birthday.

If you could join me in wishing her a happy birthday.

Hon. Anne Kang : I have two sets of introductions today.

In the gallery today, I’m proud to introduce the B.C. Federation of Students. The

BCFS represents over 170,000 students from 15 university and college students unions

across B.C. Sitting in the gallery, we have Jessie Niikoi, Cole Reinbold, Jill Adams

and Michael Gauld, along with Joel Gilani, Emmanuel Adegboyega, Sameer Ismail, Cora-Lynn

Bell, Izzy Easton, Kate Love, Sanchit Kwatra and Wendy Redhead.

As well, my second introduction is that I have my amazing CA who’s visiting today,

Ryan Erwin. He is a lawyer, he is a musician, and he is a singer. He’s played in a

lot of musicals locally.

Would the House please make my constituency adviser feel very welcome.

Gavin Dew : We are joined in the gallery today by Keerit Jutla. While president and CEO of the

Association for Mineral Exploration, Keerit’s efforts revitalized and renewed the

voice of exploration in B.C.

Some of his most notable achievements include championing industry voices on the mineral

claims consultation framework, guiding the association’s governmental engagements

on proposed changes to the Mineral Tenure Act and supporting reconciliation with Indigenous

peoples.

Keerit was recognized with the Darpan Magazine award for corporate excellence, as well as King Charles III’s Coronation Medal.

Keerit recently moved back to the Island to start his family and has begun the role

of provincial director for the ICBA, where he continues to be a strong advocate for

the B.C. workers and businesses who are the backbone of our economy.

Please make Keerit very welcome today.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : My uncle, Paul Barber, is in the House today. He and my late aunt, Kim Malcolmson,

are a political love story. The work that they did in the Manitoba NDP government,

the work that Kim did in the pay equity commission in Ontario, the fact that Kim and

Paul were both with me when I was sworn in as a Member of Parliament.

Kim didn’t get to see me in the work here, but I so appreciate that Paul is here to

support my work.

I would love if the House could make Paul feel very welcome.

Lorne Doerkson : It’s indeed a pleasure to introduce five people from…. Well, part of them are from

Cariboo-Chilcotin: Jessie, Dylan and Hayden Lens. They are here from Williams Lake

visiting. Hayden is here to actually study for a career in social work at university.

Jessie happens to be my hairstylist, so that’s a very important note.

I also want to introduce friends that they’ve brought from Saskatoon. That is Jessica

Mansell and Daithi Nolan.

Would the House please welcome them all. They’re a great group. They’re going to tour

the Legislature this afternoon.

It’s great seeing you here.

The Speaker : I’m glad you have some hair, Member.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : In the Legislature today is my favourite constituent. He is a 56-year resident of

Coquitlam. For the last 27 years, he has owned and operated his own small business,

working really hard, getting up early mornings and delivering dairy products across

the Lower Mainland. Recently he sold his business so that he could support his wife

to come to this Legislature and do very important work.

My husband, Brian Wickens, is here.

He supports me in everything that I do. He is the love of my life, he is my best friend,

and he is doing the very important work of watching over our two amazing teenagers

while I am away more often than not.

Will the House please join me in thanking him.

A public apology for being cranky sometimes. I love you and thank you for being here.

Hon Chan : I would like to take a moment to introduce two very important people in my life.

My parents, David and Susannah, are up there.

They have been longtime Richmond residents. They have always been my greatest supporters,

shaping the person I am here today with their love, guidance and unwavering encouragement.

I also want to take this opportunity to wish my mother a belated happy birthday, as

we celebrated last week together.

Please join me in welcoming them. A very warm welcome to the House.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : Would the House please join me in wishing a happy birthday to my chief of staff,

Nic Bragg.

We just enjoyed a wonderful lunch of samosas and pie, and I just wanted to take this

opportunity to thank him for all his hard work.

Jennifer Blatherwick : I would like to introduce a constituent who is very important to our riding. He is

the chief executive, the executive director, the president and chair of the Tri-Cities

Trophy Husband Society who also has the most amazing sense of humour and helps me

co-wrangle our passel of five children.

He is a teacher, he is a coach, he is the most prolific volunteer I have ever met,

and he has the biggest heart: my husband, David.

George Anderson : I have the great fortune of introducing Ms. Rolanda Murray.

Ms. Murray represents what I would say is the best of what British Columbians intend

to be, which is hard-working, giving back to their communities and just caring so

much about our communities. The other great thing that I have to say about Ms. Rolanda

Murray is the fact that she chose to work alongside me as my constituency adviser.

I have the great fortune of welcoming Ms. Murray here to this House today, and I hope

that the entire House would make her feel welcome.

Paul Choi : I have a great privilege and am excited to welcome one of my CAs also, who supports

at Burnaby Centre: Layla Lee, who’s here with her partner.

She is a magician. She is fantastic with many different designing and the marketing

that we do, along with my other CAs who are here in the precinct, Vincent Lin and

Rea Park.

They’re here to ensure that they can work together as a team and also learn about

all the work that we MLAs do here so that they can better serve the community back

home.

Please make them all feel welcome today.

Sunita Dhir : It is my pleasure to introduce our wonderful constituency staff today in the House.

We have our wonderful senior constituency adviser Amy Li in the House, and Kathleen

Serrano. She’s the temporary part-time constituency adviser in our office.

Both of them are so hardworking and compassionate. I feel very fortunate to have worked

with them.

Vancouver-Langara is in good hands when I’m in Victoria, and they take very good care

of our constituents.

[1:45 p.m.]

Speaker’s Statement

Rules and Guidelines for

Introductions by Members

and Members’ Statements

The Speaker : Members, before we begin this afternoon’s session, I have two reminders for the House.

First, pursuant to practice recommendation 2, introductions by members must be brief,

precise and non-argumentative. To make the best use of our House time, I ask members

to be mindful of this. Otherwise, sometimes we go way beyond five minutes. That’s

not acceptable, so please keep them to 30 seconds.

Second, for a private member’s statement prior to oral question period, Standing Order

25B provides that they are limited to two minutes. The Chair has exercised a fair

deal of leniency over the past few weeks but asks members to pay attention to the

timers and to keep their statements to a maximum of two minutes.

Lastly, when members want to make two-minute statements, please provide your names

to the Speaker’s office. Today I did not get the names, so we will be making some

guesswork.

If I recognize you, if I remember your name, you will be allowed to make a statement.

If we don’t, you may skip.

Member for Abbotsford South.

Members’ Statements

Credential Recognition Process

for Health Care Professionals

Bruce Banman : It’s nice to know you still recognize me, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to share a story that highlights the failure of our health and certification

systems in British Columbia.

Dr. Oleksandr Martsiv, Alex, a Ukrainian physician with 17 years of experience, fled

the war with his wife and seven children and came to British Columbia for safety and

opportunity.

Instead of being able to put his medical skills to work in our overwhelmed health

care system, he is working as a welder. The cost and complexity of our certification

system left him with no other choice because he can’t afford the approximately $6,000

to write the exams.

This isn’t just Dr. Alex’s story. It’s the story of hundreds of qualified professionals

being sidelined in British Columbia by excessive red tape. At a time when hospitals

are understaffed, patients are waiting months, if not years, for care, we are turning

away skilled doctors and nurses.

The licensing process across Canada is inconsistent, expensive and overly complicated.

Provinces operate in silos and lack standardization certification systems, and it’s

harming British Columbians every day.

I believe British Columbia only tests once a year for a medical doctor. It’s time

to implement a standard interprovincial testing and credential recognition for doctors

and other professionals.

Why are we making it harder, not easier, for willing experts to contribute to our

province? Why pay sign-up bonuses instead of making it easier to write the actual

exams?

It’s time we eliminate these bureaucratic roadblocks. Let’s create a path where doctors

like Alex can get to work helping British Columbians save lives and build a future

right here in British Columbia.

Food Security and Local Producers

Harwinder Sandhu : Food security and supporting local has never been more important, given the challenges

we face. It is crucial to strengthen our local food systems, to support food producers

and local businesses, as well as to ensure that fresh, healthy food remains within

the reach for all.

Over the past two weeks, I have had the privilege of visiting growers and food producers

across the Interior and the Kootenays. I’ve seen firsthand the challenges they face.

But even in the face of adversity, their resilience, innovation and dedication of

feeding our communities remain unwavering.

In the North Okanagan, I was honoured to help celebrate a $1 million investment through

the critical food infrastructure fund to Land to Table Society.

This funding will empower North Okanagan Food Shed project, creating stronger regional

food networks connecting farmers directly with consumers and reducing reliance on

corporate supply chains. Thanks to the United Way and Valley First Credit Union for

their incredible partnership to make this happen.

Another great news. Okanagan Spirits Craft Distillery recently brought home 11 gold

medals, five silver medals and the prestigious title of world-class distillers at

the 2025 World Spirit Awards in Germany. What a remarkable achievement and a shining

example of how B.C. producers continue to stand out on the world stage.

At the heart of our communities are people like Donna Antonishak, whose leadership

with Good Food Box of the North Okanagan ensures that families have access to fresh,

affordable food. She just got the King Charles III medal.

Congratulations, Donna.

[1:50 p.m.]

When we invest in local food security, we stand with people who grow our food, and

we’re not only nourishing our communities. We are also proving that B.C.’s food and

beverages are not just good; they’re world class.

Canadian Ski Patrol

Sheldon Clare : I rise today to speak of the merits of an intrepid group of volunteers charged with

the safety and first aid of skiers and snowboarders at cross-country and downhill

ski facilities across our beautiful province, the Canadian Ski Patrol.

As one who wholly adopts the philosophy that it is far better to embrace winter than

to suffer it, I have long been an enthusiastic cross-country and downhill skier. A

few weeks ago I was skiing the trees off-piste at one of the local ski hills near

Prince George with a friend and my elder daughter when I had a negative interaction

with a stump.

Despite being injured and with the help of my companions, I made it out to the run,

whereupon we contacted the ski patrol for assistance. The members of the ski patrol

attended promptly, assessed my injury and transported me down the hill in a toboggan

for treatment and release. At all times, the ski patrol was professional, effective

and efficient.

There are approximately 450 members of the Canadian Ski Patrol in British Columbia,

with some 4,500 members across Canada in 56 zones and nine divisions. The Canadian

Ski Patrol provides first-aid services at approximately 135 Nordic and alpine ski

areas in British Columbia. In B.C., the ski patrol treats some 2,000 to 2,200 injuries

each season.

Most ski patrol members are volunteers and come from all walks of life. They are thoroughly

trained in CPR, AED and WHMIS. Ski patrollers take an advanced first-aid course on

snow and accident site management training, as well as safety education. They are

trained and conduct training in avalanche and radio use. Patrollers are recertified

annually.

Besides these important roles, CSP members have provided services at Canadian Olympic

and Paralympic events, as well as provincial Winter Games and Canadian provincial

championships in downhill, cross-country skiing and biathlon.

When you are enjoying winter sports, please follow the alpine responsibility code,

ski with care, and remember to thank those folks in the red-and-white uniform jackets

who are helping you to be safe when you are enjoying British Columbia’s winter wonderlands.

Downtown Eastside Support Services

and Community Work

Amshen / Joan Phillip : Today I would like to talk about the important work that’s going on in the Downtown

Eastside, the Vancouver-Strathcona constituency.

Our government has risen to meet the moment, to lift people up out of poverty through

investments in substance use treatment, employment supports, $10-a-day daycare spaces,

adult literacy programs and, more importantly, affordable housing. As representatives,

we have a duty to lift all people up, particularly those that are marginalized communities,

to remove the barriers and meet people where they’re at.

I always say it’s not about the addictions; it’s about the pain and trauma that people

have suffered. Heaven and earth couldn’t have moved me to stop until I was ready.

The turning point for me was obtaining secure and dignified housing. And something

wonderful happened. I stopped drinking, I got a job, I went to treatment, and I realized

my own value. I went back to school.

This work is ongoing, and so much more needs to get done. The criticisms that we’re

failing really miss the forest for the trees.

These problems are decades in the making, as a result of the residential school system

and their experiences, and they won’t be solved overnight. People don’t want to live

in the streets, in shelters or in precarious housing. These are people facing intersecting

barriers but mainly untreated pain and trauma.

I’m proud of the work that we’ve done in this province, but we can’t tackle this alone.

I grew up in the Downtown Eastside. I’ve seen the changes. We need everyone at the

table, and I hope the members of this House will come together to help support dignified

housing, mental health and social supports, and to work to improve their lives.

Huy ch q’u siem.

[1:55 p.m.]

The Speaker : Thank you, Member.

As a reminder, the statement must be finished within two minutes.

Spirit of the North

Healthcare Foundation

Kiel Giddens : I rise today to thank an organization that is critical not only to people in Prince

George but to all of us in northern British Columbia. Spirit of the North Healthcare

Foundation works each and every day to enhance the quality of health care within the

University Hospital of Northern B.C. service area.

This is not a small area. This includes critical funding for health care equipment

and programs in the northern Interior, including Prince George, the northwest coast,

the Peace region and everywhere in between.

Since 1991, the foundation has contributed over $40 million to the region for everything

from regional mobile ultrasound machines, the simulation labs for the ongoing education

of health care professionals, to full capital programs for hospital wards and retrofits

in the North. They provide an avenue for donors to support their loved ones in the

North with better health care.

Their signature events bring the community together, whether that’s the recent Evening

in India gala or their incredible Festival of Trees that kicks off Christmas every

year in Prince George.

And a shout-out to the Prince George Cougars, who are in the first round of the playoffs

right now. Their recent mega-jackpot 50/50 raised an incredible $200,000 for cardiac

care.

Donations large and small make a real impact, and I’ve had the opportunity to tour

UHNBC to really witness the sheer magnitude of life-changing and life-saving equipment

that has been added. For several years, the organization has been working to improve

cardiac care.

Northern Health is the only health authority in the province that doesn’t have a catheterization

lab and full cardiac care unit. As the campaign says, “Time is tissue,” and we are

working towards a day when northerners won’t have to travel all the way to Kelowna

or Vancouver just to access cardiac care.

This past December was bittersweet, as I resigned from the board of directors to be

able to help Spirit of the North in a new way as the MLA for the region. I’ll miss

the regular work, but the organization is in incredible hands.

I’d like to thank each and every one of the donors, the volunteers, the talented staff,

the dedicated board and everyone who makes that team spirit for all the work you do

for each and every one of us in the North to improve quality of life.

Affordable Housing Projects

in Greater Victoria

Nina Krieger : Everyone needs a safe, stable place to call home. We want all people — health care

workers, teachers, newcomers and seniors, people who need extra supports — to be able

to live, work and thrive in our communities.

Last week I had the great pleasure to be part of an exciting announcement about 530

homes opening across Greater Victoria for low- to middle-income people, thanks to

investments by the province.

The backdrop for this announcement was the Lions in Esquimalt, operated by the Greater

Victoria Housing Society. Among the new residents in this 137-unit building is an

early childhood educator and a proud mom to a toddler, thrilled to be putting down

roots in a safe and vibrant community; and a mother of a teenager with a disability,

relieved that her son is now able to walk to school.

I recently toured the Crosstown project in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake,

with lead partner Cool Aid Society. Crosstown includes 100 affordable units for individuals,

families and people with disabilities. A further 54 units will be dedicated to supportive

housing, with on-site programs and services to help people live healthy, independent

lives. The project will also include 36 spaces and a beautiful purpose-built child

care centre, as well as a new community health centre and pharmacy.

Crosstown’s innovative, integrated model provides an opportunity to experience the

dignity that comes with home, health and connection.

I’d like to salute and thank all the project partners working with us in the region

and across the province, tackling the challenges faced by many British Columbians

with care and compassion. Together we are building strong, resilient communities for

a better tomorrow.

[2:00 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Carbon Tax Policies

John Rustad : The Premier has done an amazing flip-flop on B.C.’s carbon tax. Last year when the

Premier was asked by Pierre Poilievre to join seven other Premiers in axing this tax,

this Premier responded by saying that he’s living in “a baloney factory.”

Now this Premier has capitulated on his strongly held personal beliefs due to political

pressure from commonsense Conservatives. This is an amazing flip-flop, worthy of an

Oscar, but B.C. still has a punishing industrial carbon tax.

Will the Premier commit today to adding a double backflip to his routine and axe the

industrial carbon tax?

Hon. David Eby : We’re glad to be supporting British Columbians right now, when they need that support,

in getting rid of the carbon tax.

I note that the member forgets his own record. This is a tax that was introduced and

passed by the opposition members. They were called something different then, but it’s

the same party. The opposition leader voted in favour of the carbon tax — not one

time, not two times but seven times.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. David Eby : But that was before he made his own realization that climate change is a hoax. He

wants to let big polluters off the hook, because he doesn’t think climate change is

real. “The CO2 theory does not hold water. The masses have bought into a lie,” he

said.

He said: “It’s ‘false’ that humans burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change.”

To whom? The editorial board of the Globe and Mail is who he told that to. He once said that climate change “may turn out to be a hoax.”

I guess he got to his conclusion.

We can’t trust him in terms of growing an economy that is low-carbon and ready for

the future. That’s the difference between their side and our side.

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

John Rustad : Well, as the carbon tax has been taking $3 billion out of people’s pockets in this

province, it’s great to see the full realization that it is hurting people’s affordability.

Unfortunately, of course, people have had to live through eight years of this challenge

from this government.

The reality is this. This Premier — we can go on for many, many quotes on his support

of carbon taxes — has finally come to the realization that the Conservatives were

right all along, in terms of it.

The reality is that our industry is struggling. People don’t want to invest in this

province. People are being driven out of this province. Whether it’s our agricultural

sector, whether it’s our trucking sector, whether it’s our forest sector, whether

it is our oil and gas sector, they need to be able to be competitive. This carbon

tax is a job-killer. The Premier finally has admitted that, in terms of how difficult

it is and how challenging it is for people in British Columbia.

Take that last little step, that additional amount, and eliminate it.

Will the Premier commit today to actually support British Columbians in their efforts

to be able to strengthen the economy in this province?

Hon. David Eby : I’m glad for the opportunity to respond again. It’s important to support industry

and make sure that they have the support to reduce emissions, but you also have to

provide that encouragement to them. Putting a carbon price on big polluters encourages

them to adopt technologies to reduce emissions.

That’s why we have the cleanest products in the world produced right here in British

Columbia. We’re proud of that. But it’s also helping our economy grow. I know the

member is not troubled by facts, but British Columbia had the biggest GDP growth of

any of the provinces in Canada last year. We gained 25,400 full-time jobs since December

alone.

We do face another threat that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are

in denial about. That is the threat from the President of the United States and his

unjustified tariffs that threaten British Columbians. I look forward to the day when

he and his colleagues all stand up in support of our provincial economy, in support

of our Canadian economy, against Donald Trump and his unjustified tariffs.

There’s something that is not a hoax and that we can all stand in support of, and

I count on that happening.

Interprovincial Trade

and Tax Policies

Peter Milobar : The Premier always forgets to add in the largest deficits in B.C. history under the

NDP when he talks about these things.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, nationally there has been a committee of the trade ministers and the federal

trade minister since 2017 — it lines up perfectly to when this government first took

office — to deal with interprovincial trade barriers. We heard very little of it,

especially out of British Columbia, in terms of any progress being made. So we are

glad, on this side of the House, to hear that this government is finally willing to

possibly take some meaningful action to remove interprovincial trade barriers.

The problem is that in this year’s budget, there is absolutely nothing to try to help

manufacturing and other industries in B.C. that would then be trading across those

interprovincial trade boundaries.

Does the Premier actually have a plan to make B.C. businesses competitive, with lower

taxes, like jurisdictions like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario do, or are we intending

on just watching all our manufacturing move over to those provinces as well?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, member opposite, for the opportunity to talk about how much our government

has been at the table with business, whether it’s keeping the tax rate low for small

businesses and making 90 percent of them exempt from the employer health tax credit

or whether it’s our manufacturing jobs fund.

I was just out in the Okanagan, on the break, where we were able to announce new funding

for food manufacturing. That’s value added on our food, helping with food security,

tariff response and keeping manufacturing jobs growing here in the province.

Our government has been at the table to unlock manufacturing jobs through our manufacturing

jobs fund and our integrated marketplace funding and other funding that has helped

our sectors continue to grow.

But we know these tariffs will hurt our businesses. That’s why we’ve created the tariff

response committee, where we’re meeting with businesses and engaging, and that’s why

I was out on the ground meeting with businesses across the province, so we can continue

to help them pivot in these challenging times.

The Speaker : Kamloops Centre, supplemental.

Peter Milobar : Well, that answer doesn’t actually match up to the government’s own actions in their

own budget document and around interprovincial competitiveness with a tax structure.

We’re seeing investment leave British Columbia like never before, be it down into

the States or be it across Canada. We’ve actually seen, and these are the government’s

numbers, five consecutive quarters of interprovincial population moving out of B.C.

to other provinces, primarily Alberta, because they can’t afford British Columbia

anymore and they see more opportunities of our younger workforce to move to Alberta,

Ontario and Saskatchewan.

The Premier’s budget book on page 132 very clearly shows that our general rate, our

manufacturing rate, our payroll taxes, our fuel taxes — you name it — within the manufacturing

realm are not competitive with the rest of Canada. When we remove interprovincial

trade barriers, which is a good thing, you need to have a competitive tax structure

as well to actually retain the manufacturing jobs. We’re already losing the workers

quarter after quarter as it is.

Again, can the Premier point to anything in this budget that is directly designed

to help with interprovincial trade barriers being removed on the competitive side

of taxation for industry and manufacturing?

Hon. Diana Gibson : That is simply not true. Our government has been leading the country in economic

growth and unlocking investment. Our government has been helping…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Diana Gibson : …through our manufacturing jobs fund and through an integrated marketplace and many

initiatives to leverage investment, record levels from across the country and internationally.

Our government is at the table on unlocking internal trade so that we can continue

to support businesses to pivot.

We know these are going to be tough times for our manufacturing sector and for investors

in B.C. That’s why our government has been championing reducing internal trade barriers

across the country and been leading the item 30 table to reduce regulatory barriers

and ensure mutual recognition.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. Diana Gibson : Internal trade barriers are one of the big challenges that we know businesses face,

and we are at the table to ensure we’re unlocking economic development through ensuring

businesses in B.C. can get their products on the shelf out in Ontario and Quebec.

We’ve been doing that through the internal trade tables, and we will continue to champion

this.

[2:10 p.m.]

Child Protection System

and Safety of Youth in Care

Rob Botterell : Endless reports and reviews continue to draw attention to the failings of B.C.’s

so-called child welfare system. In late January, we saw another death of an Indigenous

youth in government care.

Families and communities continue to be shaken by the tragedies that arise from a

broken system. The latest reports from the Representative for Children and Youth,

Don’t Look Away and No Time to Wait , highlight the urgent need for reform.

To the Minister of Children and Family Development: what tangible steps is your government

taking to address the deep-rooted, systemic issue of the child welfare system in B.C.?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I’d like to thank the member for the question.

The death of this youth is devastating. I am heartbroken to hear the news of this

tragedy. I am sorry.

To their family, friends and community, their life mattered, it was important, and

I will carry them in the work that I do every single day.

As a mom of two teenagers, I can’t think of anything more tragic or devastating. Our

Child, Family and Community Service Act, which governs child protection services in

this province, has strong privacy protections that I am beholden to. I cannot speak

to any one specific case when there is information obtained through that act.

What I can speak to, in general, is the expectation of my ministry that any time there

is a child death in this province, we review the circumstances surrounding that death,

we make recommendations, and we work with our oversight bodies in this province, including

the Representative for Children and Youth, the police and the Coroners Service.

There are a number of recommendations that have been made by the Representative for

Children and Youth. I am working very closely, and my ministry is working very closely,

on those recommendations. A number of them have been implemented and are underway.

I’m happy to work with the member opposite to provide more information on the specifics

of this. There is nothing more important to me, as the minister, than the safety and

well-being of all children in this province.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : Children frequently go missing from government care, and far too many of these disappearances

end in fatality or critical injury. Tinkering around the edges is not an adequate

response to the historic and ongoing injustices that youth in government care experience

in this province, especially Indigenous youth.

We owe it to these children, their relatives and their communities to do better. Empty

words are not enough for the insurmountable grief these families are feeling.

Again, to the Minister of Children and Family Development: will you implement not

just some but all the recommendations from the RCY to strengthen oversight and accountability

within the system?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I absolutely take every recommendation that’s made by the Representative for Children

and Youth incredibly seriously. We are taking a whole-of-government approach to responding.

That means there are a number of recommendations that we are responding to across

government.

A deputy ministers project board has been struck to create a comprehensive child and

youth well-being plan and outcomes framework. We have done a number of things to address

the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in care, including hiring our very first

Indigenous child welfare director. We have a number of partnerships that we are engaging

in with Indigenous communities and Indigenous governing bodies.

My ministry’s budget increased by $321 million this year because we believe that we

need to make investments to ensure that we’re doing better for children and youth

in this province. I am committed to that every day.

So that everybody in this House knows, I come to this work, first and foremost, as

a mom of two teenagers. I come to this House as someone who has delivered MCFD services

themselves. I have received MCFD services for 15 years.

I take this role incredibly seriously, and I will work collaboratively with any of

the members in this Legislature on better outcomes for children and youth, and on

the safety and well-being of children and youth so that we can see more children and

youth thrive in this province.

[2:15 p.m.]

Chief Executive Officer at

Provincial Health Services Authority

Sheldon Clare : Transparency and accountability have not been the hallmarks of this government, but

there is nowhere that this government has underperformed worse than in health care.

Before the break, 20 opposition MLAs stood up and raised serious concerns about rural

health care throughout the province, only to be met with platitudes and non-commitments.

We should all agree in this House that transparency is paramount. We learned this

morning that the Premier has appointed Penny Ballem to be the new CEO of the Provincial

Health Services Authority.

What outcomes does this government expect from the new PHSA CEO, and will the government

table her contract so that British Columbians can know the full extent of her mandate,

rather than hiding it in a numbered company?

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

It was a commitment that we made during the campaign and that was reiterated again

in my mandate letter given to me by the Premier that we would undertake a review of

the health authorities, with a particular eye to the administrative spending and making

sure that all health authorities are operating as efficiently and effectively as possible

so that the maximum number of dollars and the best use of dollars are being applied

right on the front lines.

That’s why today I announced that we are starting with a review of the Provincial

Health Services Authority. I also announced a number of leadership changes that would

take place, to make sure that we can do this quickly and effectively.

One of those, of course, is that Dr. Ballem will be coming in as the interim CEO at

PHSA. We have announced that Dr. Byres, who was the previous leader, is coming on

a secondment to the ministry to focus on the incredibly important issue of specific

anti-Indigenous racism.

I have full confidence in these leaders and the work they are going to do. I look

forward to seeing the results of the review. I’m expecting the first report out on

the review in six weeks’ time.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Sheldon Clare : B.C. health care is crumbling beneath our feet, and the NDP’s answer is to kick the

PHSA board to the curb and appoint a B.C. NDP insider to lead the organization as

CEO.

This is the same CEO who had a hand mismanaging Ontario’s e-health system, costing

their province $1 billion, according to the Ontario Auditor General.

To the Premier, with British Columbia’s health care in shambles, why is this government

bringing in a failed consultant to run the PHSA?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I have absolutely no problem standing up and defending the work that Dr. Ballem has

been doing in the health care sector for the past 35 years. For 35 years she has had

a sequence of different roles in the private sector, in the non-profit sector and

in the health care sector. She was the deputy minister when the Provincial Health

Services Authority was established, for its first four years.

She is a recipient of the Order of British Columbia. She provides sound and sage advice

to this government. I look forward to working with her and the review team, the board

of PHSA and others, as we undertake a review that is incredibly important.

Let us not forget. This is about delivering better health care for British Columbians.

This review will take place. The regional health authorities will have their reviews

initiated soon enough. We’re going to do everything, everything that we can, to ensure

effective and efficient health care delivery that works for people, works for health

care providers and provides for better outcomes for everybody.

Gavin Dew : “This government is once again showing its willingness to override independent bodies

and centralize power in the hands of a few ministers who think they know better than

the people.” That was the Premier back in 2014, when he was on this side of the House.

It has been five months since the last election, and still this government has no

agenda, no plan, and all the Premier can do is repeatedly try to seize power for himself.

The Premier recently surrendered in his most recent attempt to consolidate power in

his office, but only after every single stakeholder stood up and told him his power

grab was beyond the pale.

[2:20 p.m.]

Why is this Premier so determined to centralize power in his own hands while sidelining

the people of British Columbia, the Legislature and even his own caucus?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I would think the member would know that that question is actually out of order.

I believe he’s referring to a bill that’s before the House right now. We will have

plenty of time to debate, and I look forward to that debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Thank you.

Next member.

Mandeep Dhaliwal : Surrey didn’t vote for a dictator. Surrey didn’t vote for a tyrant to fight Donald

Trump.

Why did the Premier try to become him?

The Speaker : Member, again, the Attorney General has noted that that bill is before the House,

so it’s out of order.

Next member.

Government Spending Priorities

and Premier’s Office Funding

Reann Gasper : Families across B.C. are being crushed by the cost of living. Rents are through the

roof. The grocery rebate was cancelled, and parents are worried about child care.

Yet while families struggle, this Premier is spending more than ever on the size and

scope of his office. The Premier doubled the budget for his office since forming government,

while less than 10 percent of children five and under have access to affordable child

care spaces, and the wait-list is years long.

Why is this NDP government more focused on stuffing the Premier’s office with high-paid

staff than delivering on their promises to B.C. families?

Hon. Lisa Beare : I thank the member so much for the question, because I know the member knows how

important child care is to our government.

In fact, this past week I announced $62 million in new spaces funding all across this

province. I also announced an additional 770 new spaces of $10-a-day child care, and

there are thousands more spaces to come as we work towards our goal of 20,000 by spring

next year.

We know child care is such an important service to families in every corner of this

province. We’re going to continue to invest in new spaces to bring down the cost of

child care and to support our early education workers.

Payments to Highway Project Workers

and Government Management of

Transportation Projects

Harman Bhangu : After months and months of pushing this government to do the right thing and end

the Kootenay ferry strike, they finally listened to reason and appointed Vince Ready

to mediate.

It’s taken over five months to get a resolution on this Kootenay ferry strike. But

do you know what else has taken five months? Getting the workers on a

section of a

Highway 1 project paid on time. Hard-working truckers, subcontractors, gravel pits,

dirt disposal sites all deserve to be paid on time.

I understand some of them have been paid after I had brought this to the attention

of the Transportation Minister. I would like a specific date on when these workers

will be paid, a specific date from this Premier and this Minister of Transportation.

Nothing less is unacceptable.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the question from the member.

The member will know there has been a considerable amount of work done in terms of

ensuring that those who should be paid are to be paid.

In fact, there was a lot of work done by my ministry in ensuring that the general

contractor was working with the Teamsters Union and others, those who were contracted,

to ensure that the proper timesheets and claims were being put forward so that they

could be processed.

[2:25 p.m.]

There was a significant amount of work done by both the union and my ministry and

the general contractor to ensure that one particular subcontractor was indeed making

those payments.

Those payments have been made, and there are more that are on the way.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Harman Bhangu : These workers have been waiting since October to be paid. I understand that there

was a deal made by the Teamsters 213 which amended the PLA and CBA agreements from

30-day prompt payment to 45-day prompt payment.

My question to the minister: do you know how these projects are being run, or do you

just let the ministries and everyone else run rampant?

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I know exactly how these projects are being run. They are being run in a way that

ensures British Columbia companies are hiring British Columbia workers and are training

the next generation of workers in this province.

That is why….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Keep talking.

The Speaker : Hold it. Hold it.

Member.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Thank you, hon. Member. You can yell, and you can pound on your table like a child

in a highchair going, “Me want food,” but the reality is this. The reality is this.

Those workers are being paid.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

No. It’s not acceptable.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Come to order.

Minister, be careful with your language please.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

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

Those workers are being paid. The work is being done with the general contractor to

ensure that’s taking place.

The member asked how this is being done, and I’ll tell you.

One, by dividing the contract on the Highway 1 extension to three phases so it can

be done by British Columbia companies — British Columbia companies that are hiring

British Columbians, that are training Aboriginal people, women, people who’ve never

had the opportunity to get a red seal apprenticeship before.

That’s the kind of work that’s underway. That’s how we’re getting the job done. That’s

how we’re changing the next generation of tradespeople in this province.

We will continue to do that, and we will continue to take the work to ensure that

those workers are being paid, because they are already.

Actions of Premier

Trevor Halford : There is a saying: “Never let a crisis go by without taking advantage of it.” In

British Columbia, we’ve had a lot of crises. And this Premier — he’s taken advantage

of almost all of them.

Seventeen times this Premier has run through legislation invoking closure. Crisis

in his own leadership campaign, he kicks out his opponent. Crisis of antisemitism

in his caucus, and he kicks Selina Robinson out of cabinet. Crisis in housing, he

brings in Bill 44, and he shuts out every municipality in this province.

My question is this. When will this Premier actually do the right thing, look in the

mirror and realize that he needs to put people before his own political power grab?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : The only crisis we have seen is in that opposition across the way.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Well, if the member is referencing Bill 7 as the source of the question for the hon.

member sitting just to the right of him there, then it’s pretty clear that the question

was out of order.

The Speaker : Member, you have a supplemental.

Trevor Halford : Yes, I do.

We’ve heard various challenges to Bill 7. The problem with that is not once either

myself or my colleagues have referenced Bill 7. But it has clearly struck a nerve

because every time we talk about a power grab out of the Premier’s office, we get:

“Well, it’s out of order because you’re obviously talking about Bill 7.”

Finally, finally the Premier hasn’t gotten up, but a little bit of transparency out

of this cabinet is starting to show light in this question period. So I haven’t referenced

Bill 7, my colleagues haven’t, but obviously when we talk about a power grab out of

this…

Interjections.

Trevor Halford : Because you’re referencing Bill 7.

Because they’re referencing Bill 7.

My question is not related to Bill 7. I’m sure we’ll get to that…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Let’s hear the question, please.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford : It’s their time now.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Question.

[2:30 p.m.]

Trevor Halford : My question is this. I started by talking about crisis after crisis that this Premier

has orchestrated in this province. Every time we have one, it seems that his major

priority is a power grab.

My question to the Premier is a simple one. When will he put the people of British

Columbia before his own political gain?

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the question from the member, because every time this province has faced

a challenge, whether it has been the pandemic…. This government has put the people

of this province front and centre every single time.

What was the opposition’s reaction?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : What was the opposition’s reaction, and still is? To want to vilify and fire one

of the key public servants in this province, Dr. Bonnie Henry. They wanted to fire

her, an individual who helped guide us through that crisis.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member. Surrey-Cloverdale. Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Let’s conclude.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : And on the current crisis with the United States that we face, when we need a united

province and a Team Canada province, that side of the House can’t even get it in order

to vote to condemn Donald Trump.

We stand for British Columbia, we stand for Canada, and we always will.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker : Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General report Ministry of Forests: Calculating Carbon Projections, March 2025.

Mable Elmore : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mable Elmore : I just want to recognize and welcome a new constituency assistant who is working

for me in my office.

I am just very privileged and honoured and ask everyone to give a very warm welcome

for Kathleen Serrano.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 6, Supply Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of

Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. After that, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

After that, the Ministry of Infrastructure and, time permitting after that, the Ministry

of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness Estimates.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 6 — Supply Act ( N o . 1), 2025

The Chair : All right, Members. Welcome. We will call this chamber back to order where we are

moving on committee for Bill 6, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2025.

Shall clause 1 pass?

Peter Milobar : I think the minister probably wanted to open things up.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : If I could just take a moment to introduce my team, if I may.

The Chair : That would be great.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you very much, hon. Chair.

I’m joined today by Chris Skillings, who’s the executive director, fiscal planning

and estimates, and Treasury Board staff; and Ryan Pare, director, estimates, Treasury

Board staff.

On clause 1.

Peter Milobar : This clause 1 is the voted expenses appropriation, so all manners of expenses to

keep government running, payments to people and things of that nature. It’s based

on one-quarter of what is laid out in the main estimates.

Has this been adjusted at all, or will it be adjusted today for no payments being

needed to be expended in the climate action tax credit out of the carbon tax?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We will not be tabling new estimates to reflect this change. The interim supply act

is based on estimates as tabled on March 4, 2025.

Peter Milobar : Well, all budgetary items are an estimate by the government in terms of what they

think they want to spend on programs until it gets ratified by this Legislature at

the end of May. That’s why we’re in this process here right now. There’s always an

assumption by government that they’re going to pass all tax measures and tax changes

that they’ve laid out in the budget and in the Budget Measures Implementation Act

as well, and that’s how you get to that dollar figure.

The government, with great fanfare today, insisted that the carbon tax legislation

was urgent and needed to be dealt with today. One would assume that meant that they

had done other, proper scrutiny if you are asking for such changes within the Legislature

in terms of process — that more work would have been done in terms of costing.

Our understanding from government is that the low-income tax credit will be removed

once Bill 8 becomes law, which would be a quarter of that. It would be at least a

quarter of a million dollars, if not slightly higher. That also leaves another couple

of billion dollars of carbon tax revenues, as well, unaccounted for.

Is the minister saying that that $2.8 billion, roughly, of carbon tax revenue that

is not industrial carbon tax revenue will not be factored into the expenses appropriation?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The interim supply is authorizing spending and does not deal with revenue side. We

do expect there, of course, will be a reflection of unspent amounts of the CATC, the

climate action tax credit, because of the legislation that we’ve tabled today. That

will be reflected when we present Q1.

Peter Milobar : I can appreciate this doesn’t deal with the revenue side of the equation. However,

we know there was around $1 billion within the climate action tax credit that would

be expended, so about $250 million in this vote on clause 1.

There’s another $1.8 billion of carbon tax revenue that is collected that — one would

presume, with the government running a deficit — is also being spent that will cease

to exist whenever Bill 8 gets passed and gets royal assent today or early tomorrow

morning. Another quarter of that would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million.

So we’re talking about an aggregate of about $750 million that’s being asked for today

that, by the government’s own admission, they don’t seem to need anymore for the first

quarter of operations to meet the expenditures of government.

I guess the question is, then, is the minister saying that there will be no other

cuts to programs that are funded by carbon taxation other than the low-carbon tax

credits to low-income households, and the other programs of that $1.8 billion of programming

that are funded by carbon taxation stay intact?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Really, the interim supply is about the initial spending into this fiscal year, and

it’s based on estimates that were tabled on March 4. They have not been adjusted and

are not going to be adjusted to reflect changes in carbon tax. That will be reflected

in Q1.

There is a lot of work before us, without question, in regards to path to balance,

but questions on path to balance are really outside the scope of this bill, Bill 6.

Peter Milobar : Well, the whole purpose of the supply bill and the whole reason that we say it’s

an estimate of a quarter or an estimate of a third is to keep the doors of government

open and to be able to fund the programs that the government is intending to fund

until they find out if they have final approval by this Legislature on the final budget.

That’s why oppositions tend to agree with the supply bill, as well, because we want

government to still operate. We want hospitals. We want expenditures to be met and

bills to be paid, despite what we just heard about highway construction during question

period and five months waiting for payments and things of that nature. That’s what

the supply bill is supposed to make sure does not happen.

The question is really, fundamentally, around the government’s plan to spending and

why this wasn’t adjusted then. The government knows that they plan to not spend $1

billion on low-income carbon action tax credits in this coming fiscal year, which

would be $250 million in the first quarter.

The second part of that question was: does that mean, then, that they still intend

to fully fund the $1.8 billion of other projects that are obviously using carbon tax

revenue to fund? We’re running an $11 billion deficit and climbing, so there is no

way that carbon tax revenue is not being used in its entirety for one expenditure

or another of government. So there is another $1.8 billion of carbon tax that, as

of today, will be eliminated by this government in terms of collection, but there’s

an expense side to that $1.8 billion.

Why was this not adjusted downwards by a quarter of that $2.8 billion of expenditures?

Is the minister saying that the government has not yet decided, despite the fact we’re

supposed to have an emergency debate about carbon tax tonight, what exactly they’re

going to do with the other $1.8 billion of expenditures tied to that revenue coming

in from carbon tax?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Really, what I’d like to point out to the member opposite is that…. They seem to

be implying that there’s a direct precision on particular specifics to ministries

that are included in this. In fact, an interim supply bill is really a blanket authority

that is across all accounts, and it’s not aligned to any specific program or line

item.

It really is a very rough calculation: $82,146,902,000 divided by 25 percent is the

way that the number is reached. This is not an exercise in precision; it is to ensure

that we can continue the important work of government going forward.

The member seems to want to direct us towards questions in regards to the work that

we’re doing and have been doing on our path to balance. That’s very important work

that’s deeply underway in the Ministry of Finance, and we’ll be able to report out

on it at Q1.

Peter Milobar : I thank the minister for her explanation on how we got to a quarter, and I fully

understand that. But carbon tax is about 6 percent of the overall taxation revenue

of the province. It’s around 5 or 6 percent of the number that the minister just indicated

in terms of expenditures as well. It’s a significant portion of the overall expenditures

of this government, because it’s what funds those expenditures.

I guess I’ll ask this question, then, in relation to carbon tax, the programs that

it relates to and how it ties in with the supply act. Is the minister saying then…?

There are no provisions in Bill 8 that I can see. It’s not mentioned in the budget.

It’s not mentioned in the estimates for it to be removed and changed, the only chance

we might have to actually ask questions about it as it relates to the supply act.

Is the minister saying that there will be supplemental estimates brought forward specific

to carbon tax and the programs associated with carbon tax?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : All of the expenditures side will be going through estimates, through the various

ministries and those expenditures will be authorized.

The work to continue our work on a path to balance is happening within the Ministry

of Finance, and as I’ve mentioned, we’ll be reporting out on that work when we report

out Q1.

Peter Milobar : The question was whether the carbon tax revenue and expenditures associated with

carbon tax would be subject to supplemental budgetary estimates or not.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : No, they will not.

Peter Milobar : Thank you.

You know, I’ll read from page 60 of the minister’s budget, “Clean Buildings Tax Credit

Extended”:

“The deadline for qualifying expenditures for the clean buildings tax credit is extended

by one year, to March 31, 2026. The temporary credit supports the government’s CleanBC

plan by incentivizing energy efficiency upgrades that go above and beyond minimum

requirements for existing buildings. Reducing a building’s energy use can reduce its

environmental impact. Improved energy efficiency can provide additional benefits,

such as increased affordability, through reduced heating and cooling costs and improved

health and comfort.”

I guess the question to the minister is…. That appears to be funded by carbon tax.

Is that program still part of the voted expenses and appropriation in clause 1, or

has it been cancelled?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The decision made to move forward with the carbon tax cancellation was made after

the budget. The interim supply bill is based on the budget as of March 4. As such,

that question is outside the focus of the interim supply bill, which we’re discussing

today.

Peter Milobar : Well, clause 1 is for $20,536,726,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses

of the public service in the province for the fiscal year. Some $3 billion of those

expenditures are our carbon tax, so about $750 million for one-quarter of these expenditures

would be funded by carbon tax, which we were told by the government is urgent and

must be dealt with today with an expedited process of legislation. We can sit here

till four in the morning if we need be, but it has to be done today.

I’m simply asking if it’s that urgent and needs to be done, why don’t we see this

number being reflected with an amendment by the government to remove $750 million,

three-quarters of a billion dollars. A few hours ago the government was insisting

it was urgent that that piece of legislation be dealt with, but they didn’t deal with

this piece of legislation that they knew was coming today as well. It’s the same ministry,

actually, dealing with both.

We know the low-carbon tax credit for low-income people is no more, based on comments

by the minister today. We know that’s around $1 billion. But the minister seems unwilling

to acknowledge that the other $1.8 billion of CleanBC and other initiatives like transit

and passive active transportation, clean buildings tax credits…. A wide variety of

other programs and credits that are paid for, in the first quarter, to continue on

with clause 1, have either not been cancelled or won’t be cancelled. That’s another

half a billion dollars.

Again, I’ll ask the question: why did the ministry not adjust? The only answer I can

come up with…. Maybe they think it’s a rounding error at $250 million, when you’re

talking $20½ billion, but when you start pushing three-quarters of a billion dollars,

one would think that’s enough of a material change to acknowledge the urgency that

we were told of this morning, and that the Speaker’s office was led to believe by

the Government House Leader this morning, of how critically important it was to deal

with Bill 8 today.

The same ministry introducing that bill might have said, “Maybe we should adjust clause

1 down by three-quarters of a billion dollars to demonstrate that urgency,” if they

are truly planning on cutting those other programs.

Given that it hasn’t been adjusted, I will have to assume that it means: if you’re

low income, you’re SOL when it comes to your tax credit continuing on, but if you

want to create more bike lanes, you might be okay.

Can the minister confirm whether or not there have been plans to cut or to continue

the other $1.8 billion worth of spending from carbon tax, which would translate to

about half a billion dollars, in clause 1, or have there not been any final decisions

made on that expenditure yet?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Again, the member seems to be wanting to debate a bill different than the one in

front of us, which I may remind, is the interim supply bill. This is a bill that is

focused on spending. It does not deal with revenue.

It is a bill that is using a general estimate of costs, in the first quarter, for

the functioning of government. It is not a specific line-by-line bill that looks at

expenditures by ministry. It is a general estimate of expenses, and it is not related

to the question that the member continually is asking.

Peter Milobar : Well, respectfully, it is. I am asking about expenditures. I’m asking about $1.8

billion more of expenditures in the quarter, of that amount, which would be contained

in clause 1.

This is a government that made a big deal about how they were getting the spending

under control, and how they were finding efficiencies. They touted the $300 million

they feel they found, in the backdrop of a record deficit in this budget, on a $90-billion-plus

spending envelope.

[3:05 p.m.]

The $300 million was what was being bandied about by this government as the great

accomplishment of cost savings, yet the minister doesn’t want to answer a question

about $750 million tied to a $20 billion requisition for funds. Something seems a

little off. It’s a very straightforward question.

We know that the expenditure of $1 billion for low-income households has been removed

by this government. First there was no more grocery rebate of $1,000 for those low-income

households; that’s not in this budget. Now we’re finding out that despite it being

in this budget, it is being removed today out of this budget: the carbon tax credit

for low-income households. That has been established, and the minister has acknowledged

that publicly, multiple times.

I’m asking about the expenditure of the other $1.8 billion that comes as a result

of collecting carbon taxes. And whether or not the programs, the projects and the

tax credits, whatever type of expenditure that is attached to that $1.8 billion….

This government has made a masterwork out of talking about all the things that get

paid for by carbon tax: charging stations, EV vehicle rebates — they have removed

the EV used-vehicle rebate in this budget, at least, ahead of time — building tax

credits, passive active transportation corridors, and transit improvements that get

funded by it.

A wide variety of things get funded by carbon tax, by this government’s own admission

over the years. I’m simply asking, if there’s $1.8 billion still of spending attached

to the carbon tax collection — that’s what we have, that $1.8 billion number — have

all of those programs been decided, like the fate for low-income households has already

been decided by this government?

Or are those programs still at play, still getting funded, and there has been no decision

made, on the government’s behalf, on what they’re going to do with that spending?

Is that why those programs are not reflected in a reduction in clause 1?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Again, I don’t feel it’s appropriate to get into the types of questions that the

member opposite is fielding in regard to Bill 6, the interim supply bill. The expenditures

that are related to carbon tax and that are funded through that will be canvassed.

There’s opportunity to canvass them during estimates for the particular ministries

that they live in. That opportunity exists in a fulsome way.

The interim supply bill is about a general calculation that is used to ensure that

government has funding to continue our important work while we debate the budget,

as the budget goes through estimates. All the questions that the member opposite has

asked today are appropriate for any of those. Today we’re talking about the interim

supply bill, not Bill 8.

Peter Milobar : Well, I’m not talking about Bill 8 either. I’m talking about the expenditure plan

by this government over the next year, which was changed dramatically by the government

today, with no other documentation other than to tell us it’s an urgent bill that

we have to debate.

The minister said we’re not going to have any supplemental budget estimates attached

to that specific item, even though it’s about 6 percent of the budget, which was introduced

well after the budget was introduced.

The expenditures attached to the consolidated revenues are based — the minister is

right — on the global spend of government, but all government programs, all government

spending, goes into that global pot, on which we then create the quarter of the amount,

at $20,536,700,000.

[3:10 p.m.]

It’s traditional for the opposition to ask how that gets calculated. In most common

years, we accept the projections by government, based on the budget book that they

present in the beginning of March, or mid-February, or end of April, whenever they

choose to bring forward the budget. Everything is based on that book.

The government fundamentally changed that book today. It wasn’t the opposition. It

was actually the Finance Minister that did that.

I would think that people in B.C. would like to have some solace that there was a

game plan here when the government talks about removing 6 percent of their taxation

revenue after a budget has already been developed — not because of tariffs, actually

because of a political decision that they decided to make.

If the government had gone into any other program and said: “You know what we’re going

to do? We’re going to….” After bringing the budget book in, if they had said today

we’re going to drop personal income tax from $17 billion, $17½ billion and we’re going

to cut $3 billion out of that, I think people might have some questions as to what’s

going to happen to the spending.

If they said we’re going to cut corporate income tax from $6.2 billion down to $3.2

billion, I think there might be a reasonable expectation of a few questions being

asked as it relates to how it impacts the overall spending, because that spending

ties into revenue in terms of our overall deficit. And although the minister doesn’t

seem to be too concerned about an $11-billion-and-growing deficit, the opposition

is.

That $11 billion deficit could balloon to almost $13 billion, depending on what the

spending plans are of that other $1.8 billion of carbon taxation. That’s the revenue

side. But that $1.8 billion of expense is what creates the deficit side.

Again, the minister, ahead of today, has acknowledged repeatedly that the climate

action tax credit for low-income households is gone. It’s no more. So we know they

don’t need an appropriation of a quarter of that amount, but fair enough, even though

it’s about the same amount of money as the minister has touted for savings in the

entire budget document for the year.

I’m now asking about the other $500 million that hasn’t been deducted out of this

for expenditures. Again, is the minister saying that the other $1.8 billion of spending

that is attached to carbon tax generation for things like electric vehicle charging

stations, for things like active transportation, for things like transit, for things

like the building program I referenced out of their own budget document…?

Is she saying that decisions have not been made about whether those programs will

continue or not and that is why there has been no change to the amount of money requested

within clause 1 and that, in fact, the only people that any decisions have been made

about on their programs are low-income households in British Columbia?

[3:15 p.m. - 3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I do look forward to a fulsome discussion with the member opposite during budget

estimates on a number of the issues that he has raised, but I don’t think it’s appropriate

to answer them in this context in regards to interim supply.

Also, at this time, there is no need to adjust interim supply. We are confident that

it provides the appropriation authority that’s needed to support government until

estimates and fiscal supply have passed.

Peter Milobar : I can appreciate that the minister — fortunate for her, not so fortunate for me —

has never actually sat in opposition like myself. She went straight into government.

Estimates are not as cut and dry as the minister may think.

When you’re in opposition, you go into estimates, and you go and ask. The minister

will say, “Well, you should have asked Minister Y or Minister X,” and you say: “Well,

their estimates have already finished.” And they say: “Well, it’s not our problem.

You should have asked them when their estimates were up.”

There is a very nondescript list of things that the opposition tries to cobble together

to understand what carbon tax does or doesn’t fund out there, and it’s always like

pushing on a balloon. You’re never really sure what programs or not. I guess the ask,

then….

If the minister is unwilling or unable to answer my questions as they relate to the

expenditures of carbon tax for the first quarter of the year, which clause 1 deals

with in terms of expenditures, would the minister, then, either commit to (

a) fielding

all related carbon tax programming questions through her budget estimates with myself

— because we’re at the very end, so referring back to other ministers won’t work very

well for us; or (

b) providing us with a timely list of every single program so that

we know which ministers we should be approaching during their budget estimates?

Estimates are underway right now. We have Agriculture later today, which undoubtedly

has some carbon tax implications in it. We have Infrastructure coming, which undoubtedly

has some types of infrastructure programs related to, as I say, active transportation

and other things like that. Transit is up in the next day or two.

There’s a wide range of estimates that are happening very, very quickly, and the government

has chosen to today completely change the playing field on this budget in terms of

what may or may not be funded out of a very particular program.

I guess I’m either looking for an expediated list back of all those ministries that

carbon tax remotely pays for programming within or the minister to commit that she

would then field any and all carbon tax questions around any of those programs, given

that she is the Minister of Finance and ultimately responsible for the overall treasury

of the province of B.C.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : During the estimates process, ministers who are answering questions can defer any

questions that they want to the Ministry of Finance, which, as the member rightly

identified, goes last. That process is in place and, I’m sure, will be in use.

Peter Milobar : Well, I was trying to move this along by asking if we could get a list of the exact

programs that the minister, as the Minister of Finance, agrees or views as being funded

by carbon tax so that we can ask very targeted questions on something that has fundamentally

changed quite significantly, in terms of both the revenue side and also the expenditure

side, within the budget. As I say, it could be a $750 million difference to clause

1 on the supply bill.

[3:25 p.m.]

You know, as opposition, I guess, we’re willing to, perhaps, concede that by the end

of the fiscal year, that might work itself out. But we have, to this point, the minister

not being able or wanting to confirm what the plans are for that $750 million that’s

baked into these voted expenses, other than the fact that we know one expense has

been cut, which is that low-income households will receive less money than they previously

did — in fact, 65 percent of households.

It’s $440 for a single person, $680 for a single-parent household and $618 for a multi-parent

family. We’ll see that all cut away — 65 percent of households. I’m using government

numbers, not my own. They were actually hoping to get it up to 80 percent of households

over the next few years.

We know that that’s all been cut away, yet it still maintains in the expense appropriation,

even though you don’t need that $250 million for the first quarter. The minister doesn’t

want to acknowledge that other programs will continue on in spite of the fact that

low-income people will see that cheque cut from them.

Again, could we then get a detailed list of how that is made up so that we can continue

on in those budget estimates, or would the minister prefer that I…? I mean, apparently

we have lots of time tonight anyway. I could dig into more detail on clause 1, if

the minister would prefer, instead of using that time in budget estimates.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Again, this member is determined to be debating a bill or raising questions about

a bill that is not here tabled. This is the interim supply act. It is based on the

budget that was tabled on March 4, a calculation of what we expect to need to ensure

that government continues delivering its key programs and services while we debate

the budget.

It is not related to the question that the member is asking. It’s not related to a

list of things in regards to the questions that the member is asking. That is related

to Bill 8. Really, what we’re talking about is

section 1, which is a proposal of $10.5

billion. This is a calculation based on a general estimate, not a specific thing,

ministry by ministry or program by program. It’s designed to provide us operational

funding while we appropriately debate and explore the budget.

This is not related to Bill 8, which is where the member opposite is spending their

time, and I don’t believe that is an appropriate direction of the time we have today

to be talking about the interim supply bill, Bill 6.

Peter Milobar : Is the minister then saying that when they take the aggregate of the expenditures

and take a quarter of that, they’re not expecting that over the course of that first

quarter, most programs will indeed have some level of funding and payment needed by

the government to make programs and tax policy take effect — that in fact, almost

all expenditures of some sort or another on one degree or another will happen over

the first quarter?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Yes, and again, just to remind the member that this is a blanket estimate in

section

1 that is based on our estimates from the budget tabled on March 4 and allows us the

time to debate the budget appropriately. That’s really what is provided in

section

Peter Milobar : So would issues in and around funding towards B.C. Transit or any funding agreements

within TransLink, any of those types of initiatives that might be seen as somewhat

of a more green bent, be funded in the first quarter and need these appropriations

to make sure those transfers actually happen?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Again, the nature of the interim supply act is not one of specificity. This is a

general allocation that allows government to continue its important work.

The types of questions that the member would like to get into with some specificity

would be appropriately directed towards the estimates of that particular ministry,

in this case the Ministry of Transportation.

Peter Milobar : Well, I’m not asking for specifics. I’m not even asking for the specific dollar figure.

I was simply asking about programs. One would assume the Minister of Finance has oversight

of the overall budget.

It’s really around what goes into the general dollar figure, the $80 billion plus,

the $84 billion or $82 billion, $83 billion that creates the $20 billion clause 1

that we’re talking about. That is one-quarter of expenditures meant to have things

function in government for the first quarter of the year while we finish off the main

budget estimates and get into that line-by-line, program-by-program specific piece.

Obviously, and I referenced it at the beginning…. The minister has agreed in the past

that it would include things like keeping hospitals open and schools open. I’m not

asking for how many hospitals or how many nursing hours are part of this quarter of

expenditures. I’m not asking for how many transit hours are part of it.

What I’m asking for is if any level of transit funding for, say, B.C. Transit or TransLink

would be anticipated to be part of this one-quarter of expenditures for the first

year, or for clause 1, within that year, or is the anticipation that all of that type

of funding has somehow magically escaped needing reimbursement for the first quarter

of the year by government? In fact, transit and passive active transportation–type

programs and stuff — none of them would actually start being considered by government

or funded by government until the end of the first quarter.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I feel like this is the tenth time I’ve said this, but as the member surely must

be aware, this is blanket legislation based on the entire year’s expenditures and

calculated that one-quarter of them will be pulled through and provided so that there

is timely payment available for the programs and services that British Columbians

need. It is not specific. It is a very general calculation to ensure that government

keeps operating.

While we can do the specific work of passing our budget and participating in estimates

and having debates on budget and having each of the ministries appropriately do their

estimates, where in-depth questions and deep exploration of the type of question the

member is interested in getting into can occur, this is much different than that.

This is an interim supply bill that provides a very generalized bucket of spending

based on the budget for the entire year and divided by a quarter. It’s a very rough

methodology. It’s not specific, but it is the tool that we have that provides us the

ability to keep things moving forward while we do the important work of passing our

budget. That’s really what this Bill 6 is about.

Peter Milobar : So did the overall budget for health care factor into the one-quarter of the $20

billion that’s requested in clause 1?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : As has already been canvassed, this is a very simple definition of funding, a simple

calculation — the entire appropriations, the whole budget as tabled on March 4, divided

by one-quarter. So yes, everything that’s in the budget — March 4 it was tabled; the

entire year’s worth — divided by one-quarter.

It’s very simple. There’s no seasonality to it. There’s no specificity by ministry.

It’s a simple tool that allows us to keep the mechanism of government moving forward

while we do get into the specificity of the budget through estimates and through the

estimates of individual ministries. There’s lots of opportunity to get into those

details. The member well knows this.

Peter Milobar : Well, there are differences even within the bill. When we finally get to clause 2,

it’s one-third. It’s 33 percent of a different portion. This is 25 percent of a portion

of the budget and expenditures, so there is a difference.

I appreciate what the minister is saying. It’s kind of a cookie-cutter formula, and

I’m not.… The amazing thing is these aren’t actually gotcha questions. It’s a pretty

straightforward question: is the overall budget for the Ministry of Health cut into

four, basically, and that quarter is part of the $20,536,726,000?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Yes, the Ministry of Health, as in all components of the March 4 budget, is part

of the calculation of the full budget amount divided into 25 percent, which makes

up the number that we’re seeing in

section 1.

Peter Milobar : So we know that on Health. We know it would continue on then for all other manner

with it.

Again, the government today fundamentally changed the March 4 budget, in terms of,

we know, revenue side. But based on the minister’s statements about cutting benefits

for low-income households at the same time, we know that side, on the expenditure

side, has already been changed fundamentally by $1 billion for the year.

It might not seem like much, maybe, to the government when it’s dealing with almost

a $100 billion or $90 billion budget. But I think to the person at home, the 65 percent

of residents that are no longer going to see their $440 to $680 worth of low-carbon

tax credits, they may feel differently about that $1 billion.

Given that it doesn’t appear we actually need the $20,536,726,000 for the first quarter,

we actually need $19,786,726,000, I would like to move an amendment to clause 1.

[ Bill 6 Clause 1 be amended by striking “$20 536 726 000” and substituting “$19 786 726 000”.]

The Chair : Thank you, Member.

We will take a brief recess so that we can distribute the amendment to all of the

members of the Legislature. This committee will stand in recess.

The committee recessed from 3:40 p.m. to 3:47 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Members, we’ll call this chamber back to order.

A motion has been introduced, from the member for Kamloops Centre, reading that Bill

6, clause 1, be amended by striking $20,536,726,000 and substituting that number with

$19,786,726,000.

The motion is in order, and I would welcome the member for Kamloops Centre to speak

to the motion.

On the amendment.

Peter Milobar : As I said, it’s second reading. The opposition has no desire to shut down the doors

of government tomorrow morning. We support and understand the need for interim supply

bills. However, as the minister has indicated, that’s based on a rough calculation

of one-quarter of what gets presented in the budget document on March 4. This year

it happened to be March 4.

I tried, at length, to get the minister to acknowledge things that she has actually

acknowledged publicly, at least in relation to the low-income tax credit for climate

and carbon tax. That is being removed. The minister has talked about that openly.

That would be one-third of what I’ve removed, with my amendment, out of the interim

supply. Again, it should not affect anything to do with operation of government whatsoever.

The question mark is around that remaining $500,000…. Or the $500 million that’s on

there. That’s how big a number it is. I started thinking in thousands.

I would point out, before the minister and the staff point it out, that it’s not an

exact science. They’re absolutely right, just like the $20 billion is not exact. It’s

just a quick, rough calculation of one-quarter. It doesn’t mean that all of it gets

spent in the one quarter or not, but it’s meant to signify.

We know that $500 million is not one-quarter of $1.8 billion of the remaining carbon

tax money, but it’s meant to be a rough number. It’s not to the point that it would

hamstring government in any way, over that quarter, in terms of their legal obligations,

of expenditures that they need to do on a contractual basis.

[3:50 p.m.]

The minister, who was unable or unwilling, on multiple occasions, to talk about the

expenditure of that $1.8 billion…. I was trying to ask, in very general terms….

I asked about transit and TransLink funding being a part of the overall $20 billion.

The minister was evasive about that but had no problem in, eventually, finally acknowledging

that health care spending is a part of the $20 billion and that, in fact, all government

programming is.

That would include things like programs around transit, programs around TransLink.

It would include things like active transportation and other types around there. It

would include the clean building tax credit being extended on page 60 of that budget

on March 4 that now apparently is in jeopardy, but the minister won’t confirm whether

that is continuing on or not.

The minister says that clause 1 is based on the budget on March 4, yet when I asked

direct questions, reading passages from that budget book on March 4, I got a no answer.

So all we can assume as opposition is that in fact all those other clean initiatives

have been cut. The government has decided not to talk about it at this point, only

about cutting supports for low-income households, for whatever reason that is, instead

of talking about all the ways they’re going to address those cuts.

The actions of this government today in terms of the urgency, in terms of the overrides

that they asked, through the Speaker’s office, for this Legislature to tolerate, were

all based on urgency. Yet very straightforward questions tied into the dollars attached

to that urgency today were met with: “Ask me in the second week of May when we have

our budget estimates together.”

The government can’t have it both ways. All this amendment does is it keeps the doors

of government open. It keeps the critical services flowing, but it acknowledges that

today the government, by their own choice, fundamentally and significantly altered

the budget document of March 4, the budget document that generated the dollar figures

in clause 1.

By that expenditure within clause 1 now not needing that extra $750 million, all this

amendment is saying is we’ve recognized that we’ve done the simple calculation to

update it to better reflect in real time as we’re dealing with the legislation, based

on the changes the government has made since March 4, that the expenditures of the

government better reflect what the new priorities of this government are.

Since the government was unwilling to do that, we took it upon ourselves as the official

opposition to make sure the numbers better reflect an accuracy of the government’s

intentions on spending.

The Chair : Seeing no further speakers to the amended clause, to the amendment that has been

introduced by the member for Kamloops Centre, the question before this House is the

amendment of clause 1, Bill 6.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair : We will report to the Speaker that this House has passed Bill 6.

The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:55 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:56 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 6 — Supply Act ( N o . 1), 2025

Lorne Doerkson : The committee on Bill 6 reports the bill complete without amendment.

The Speaker : When shall the bill be read next time?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Now, hon. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Supply Act ( N o . 1), 2025

The Speaker : Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1), 2025.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1), 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I call second reading of Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax

Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker : We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we will call on the Minister of Finance

to open debate on Bill 8, the Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I move that Bill 8 be read a second time now.

Last fall our government committed to ending British Columbia’s carbon tax if the

federal government ended its national carbon pricing requirements. With the elimination

of the federal carbon tax beginning on April 1, it’s time for us to follow through

on this commitment.

This bill amends the Carbon Tax Act to cancel all scheduled rate increases and set

the carbon tax rate to zero dollars per tonne of emissions as of April 1, 2025. This

will effectively end the consumer carbon tax in British Columbia.

Government recognizes the need to balance our goals of protecting the climate and

protecting affordability. With this change, people and businesses who previously paid

the consumer carbon tax on fuels and combustibles will no longer be subject to a carbon

price. The province will continue to encourage large industry to reduce carbon emissions

through the output-based pricing system, which is not changing under this bill.

Because the purpose of the climate action tax credit is to help offset the impact

of carbon taxes paid by individuals and families, the bill also amends the Income

Tax Act to establish that no climate action tax credit payments will be issued for

the benefit year beginning July 2025. This will effectively end the climate action

tax credit, going forward. People will get the final payments in April.

[4:00 p.m.]

This bill also includes several amendments to the Carbon Tax Act that will make the

transitional period more efficient. A new refund mechanism for natural gas retailers

under the Carbon Tax Act will take effect on April 1, 2025. If natural gas retailers

are unable to adjust their systems in time to accommodate the elimination of the carbon

tax, they will be required to directly refund or credit their customers for any amount

of carbon tax collected in error.

By empowering retailers to reimburse their customers directly, over one million natural

gas customers in British Columbia can be reassured that they will not have to apply

for a refund from government.

The bill also includes technical amendments to address issues such as when businesses

are erroneously charged security for carbon tax and update requirements for fuel sellers

to be registered under the act.

The bill also includes retroactive regulation-making powers to allow government to

make technical and administrative amendments to the carbon tax regulation, effective

April 1, 2025, and to allow government to address unanticipated refund scenarios via

regulation. The bill also adds transitional regulation-making authorities under the

Carbon Tax Act that will allow government to fix any errors, omissions or ambiguities

in this bill via regulation.

Finally, the bill makes consequential amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act to ensure

appointments, permits and certificates under the act are not affected by changes made

to the Carbon Tax Act and to ensure government can retroactively amend international

fuel tax agreement refund rates to reflect the removal of the carbon tax.

Peter Milobar : Well, it’s interesting, the minister’s brief introduction to Bill 8 there, for something

you would think the government has been working on and committed to since the fall

and wanted to ensure was in place by April 1. Given that it’s March 31 and we’ve been

directed to have an emergency debate that will go probably well into April 1 on this

bill….

Again, the minister, in our previous debate around the supply bill, and now with this….

I’ll reference the budget for March 4, page 66: “Budget 2023 implemented annual carbon

tax increases of $15 a tonne until the carbon tax reaches $170 a tonne in 2030, as

per federal carbon pricing requirements. Government remains committed to removing

the consumer carbon tax should the federal government remove the requirement for carbon

pricing across Canada, also known as the federal backstop.”

Now, the interesting thing about that is it then goes on to talk about the climate

action tax credit for low-income households, which we now know has been removed by

this minister and Premier. But they were very non-committal about whether or not they’re

adjusting any spending as it relates to anything else that has to do with carbon tax.

I say that because that was March 4’s budget. So this was already in the back of the

government’s mind as they were putting the budget together. Yet when you read through

the budget, everything in the budget anticipates carbon tax still going up by $15

a tonne over the next three years, and it projects to collect close to $10 billion

in revenue. It has questionable, at best, accounting for where it’s going to spend

all that money, ever since the government made it no longer revenue-neutral.

The government very clearly, on one hand, desired and had a plan in the March 4 budget

for the carbon tax to be in place and to continue on. They have one sentence that

talks about adjusting if the federal government removes it.

Now, I say that because, as I pointed out this morning, January 31 is when then running-for-leader

but now Prime Minister Carney first talked about removing the consumer carbon tax.

In fact, the only other contender that was viewed to be a contender in the federal

leadership race, Chrystia Freeland, was also making similar overtures around the same

timeline, well ahead of the March 4 budget.

Obviously, Pierre Poilievre has made the commitment to remove the carbon tax in its

entirety. As I said in interviews last week, it appears the only two politicians in

the country that did not think there were substantive changes coming to the carbon

tax in British Columbia sometime this year were the Finance Minister and the Premier.

[4:05 p.m.]

There could have been legislation brought forward, before Bill 8, in the first month

we’ve been sitting here. We’ve been sitting here since mid-February with next to nothing

of legislation to work on.

What could have the government brought forward? Well they could have brought forward

legislation that would have taken it from a legislative requirement on the adjustment

of the carbon tax rates in British Columbia to be aligned with the federal legislation,

which is how the federal government has been able to reduce it to zero dollars tomorrow,

based on an order-in-council, based on a cabinet order that they sign off on.

Now, B.C. had the carbon tax before the federal government, so our system is different.

Our system has, as we’re witnessing now, a legislative change that needs to happen.

But that legislative change could have been brought forward, to enable the government

to make it by regulation, a month ago. They could have brought that forward a month

ago and literally could have just said that federal government goes to zero, and we

empower the cabinet to sign an order to take it to zero.

That’s not what this government has done. In fact, in 2023, they ingrained a new

schedule

taking us all the way up to 2030, all the way up $15 a year by legislation, in the

Carbon Tax Act, which Bill 8 is amending, to ensure that schedules 1 and 2 account

for all the fuels and show how it gets it up to $170 a tonne. So that’s the pre-planning

that this government has done when they wanted to charge the carbon tax. Zero pre-planning

in anticipation of what, quite literally, everyone else in the country was waiting

to happen.

Now, we can get into the differences between the consumer tax and the industrial tax

and how there are differences federally within the laws on that, as well, but Bill

8 only deals with the consumer tax, because that’s all the federal government at this

stage has said that they’re willing to deal with. But zero flexibility shown by this

government moving forward, heading to an April 1 date….

Let’s remember, the federal parliament was prorogued until March 24. So one way or

another, on March 24, we were going to be in an election where leaders had made commitments

around carbon tax federally, or the legislature was going to be recalled. A confidence

was going to happen, and people were trying to make that confidence vote around carbon

tax as well. Everyone in the country knew it except for the minister and the Premier.

What we wind up with today is legislation jammed in, with no detail from the government

as to what that impact will be. They alert the opposition late Saturday that this

is happening, after the Premier had already been out in press events talking about

it happening. They don’t give the opposition advance copy of the bill, so we could

actually look into the technical aspects of this bill whatsoever. They ensure that

they have quiet conversations with a party of two in the Green Party, but not the

party of 41.

Then they wonder why, perhaps, the opposition is saying: “You know, you just seem

to want to circumvent democracy, just a little bit, in this House.” Oh, but no; it’s

urgent. “It has to pass today. It has to be in place by April 1.” Except for when

you ask the question — what happens if debate continues past midnight tonight? — in

that case, retroactivity kicks in, and it’s not a problem. What happens if we stretch

it out till April 2? It’s not a problem. That’s the level of urgency this government

for political reasons has, but not for technical reasons, in a bill.

The excuse they will give is: “Well, we don’t know. We don’t know if we would win

a vote, and we don’t want our retailers to be in a position where they may feel exposed

if it hasn’t passed for a couple of days and they’re not sure if they should or shouldn’t

be charging the tax.” Apparently, even this government wants to admit that the retailers

don’t trust them to keep their word when they tell them to stop charging the tax.

[4:10 p.m.]

I say that because, even without the support of the Green Party, this government should

be able to win this vote. It would only be by one vote, but it would still be a win.

It’s kind of like in the Stanley Cup. If you win by one goal in game 7 in overtime,

it doesn’t really matter; you still get to hoist the cup.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar : The rest is for ego, the minister says, and I can think of no bigger ego than the

Premier’s on this piece.

The reality is that Bill 8 is not an urgent piece of legislation. We obviously have

been calling for the repeal of carbon tax for quite some time, and in fact, it’s quite

interesting to see the epiphany that the Premier has had over carbon tax.

Let’s see. “The good news is, in my opinion, and I’m staking my political career on

it, British Columbians, because we’re on the front lines of these impacts, are also

well positioned to understand why we need to do the work, why we need to show climate

leadership” — the Premier to the North Shore News , February 14, 2024.

“You don’t have to ask me. Ask the guy who brought in removing it — would result in

a double-digit tax increase for personal taxes and for corporate taxes in the province.”

Again, the Premier, April 16, 2024.

“British Columbia will continue to lead on this.” That was the Premier in November

of 2023, in this chamber.

“Let me be clear: we will not back down. God forbid, if the rest of the country abandons

the fight against climate, B.C. will stand strong.” That was with the NDP in November

of 2023 by the Premier. He has got a convention coming up this November, I believe,

and it will be interesting what he tells his delegates there, what type of applause

he gets.

Let’s see. “A cornerstone of our climate strategy.” That was another gem in September

“All the other parties it seems to me, in an effort to win votes, are willing to sell

their children’s future. I think it’s unacceptable. We won’t do it, and we will support

strong climate action.” That was the Premier on November 20, 2023.

“That’s his position, to flip-flop all over. But for us, we’re going to continue supporting

people and take action on climate. That’s what British Columbians expect.” That was

the Premier in this chamber in October of ’23.

“The member is well aware of the fact that pricing carbon is the right way to deal

with climate change. He has just lost the courage of his convictions.” Lost the courage

of his convictions around carbon tax and climate change — who would have said that,

I wonder. Oh, look at that: the Premier said it in this chamber. Well, it was Halloween

of 2023, so who knows.

“He spent 15 years saying he was proud of the carbon tax, and today he’s not.” Once

again, the Premier, same day. It was a prolific day for him, on Halloween.

“I understand that the member is under a lot of pressure from the Conservative Party,

but standing up, after the summer we had, for British Columbia to be a leader on climate

change is an important thing. His abandonment of that under pressure is exactly what’s

going to happen if he gets on this side of the House,” said the Premier on Halloween

of 2023. It sounds like he has kind of abandoned things, but what do I know?

“The province needs principled leadership. It’s hard to stand strong. But I encourage

the member to visit with the member that used to sit here in 2012, because at least

he knew what he stood for. I have no idea what that man stands for.” Premier yet again,

again on Halloween. The province needs principled leadership. Hmm.

“I know that the other side of the House is desperate to justify their about-face

on climate action. It’s embarrassing. Their leader said that bringing in carbon tax

is one of the proudest things he ever did. Now they say: ‘No, no, we don’t think it’s

a good idea anymore.’” The Premier once again.

“They will say anything to get elected. They are in a position of desperation, but

I can’t let them make up their own facts,” said the Premier with a now one-seat majority

in this chamber. Of course, he said that when he thought he was getting a supermajority.

It’s interesting how tough he was talking when he thought he had a supermajority in

the bag compared to what he is saying nowadays.

“Unfortunately” — I can’t use names — the Leader of the Official Opposition “has said

that climate change is a lie. He is promising to completely rip up B.C.’s climate

action plan, leaving British Columbians more vulnerable to extreme weather events

like wildfires and floods that add to the costs we all pay and place huge pressures

on the services we all count on.” That was the Premier in September of 2024.

[4:15 p.m.]

The interesting thing is that those programs are funded by carbon tax, the consumer

carbon tax. And the minister, in the supply bill, refused to acknowledge whether or

not those programs will now be cut because they have a $1.8 billion problem in revenue

based on the carbon tax.

This one is always a classic. “British Columbia will stand strong on climate even

if we’re the only province in Canada standing strong on climate, because in British

Columbia, we don’t see another choice. Anyone who tells you that there’s another choice

is lying to you as a politician.” That was the Premier to the North Shore News in February of 2024. Apparently he thinks there is another choice now.

“Last week we saw what was clearly a rushed announcement from the federal government.

Still trying to figure out with the federal government where they’re headed on this

issue.” That was in October of ’23. Well, we all knew where the government was heading

as of January 31. We knew where they were headed on March 14. Here we are today with

a rushed piece of legislation.

You know, there’s a long list of ministers who have come out and said interesting

things opposed to the carbon tax.

“They brought out additional taxes on carbon, and they’ve made middle-class people

pay and pay at a time when they are finding it more and more difficult to afford to

live in our province.” That was the Minister of Energy back in 2011.

Our current Minister of Health had a lot to say in support of carbon tax.

“Obviously, the carbon tax is one of the best things British Columbia has led.” That

was the current Housing Minister.

“There are climate policy experts who will say that this is widely seen as one of

the most efficient, effective and progressive means of reducing emissions.” That’s

the now Minister of Health.

“Carbon tax is something that has been shown by experts around the world as one of

the most efficient and effective means of reducing emissions, so we’re going to continue

this work here in British Columbia.” Again, the current Minister of Health.

Former Environment Minister: “Our Premier has been absolutely clear that British Columbia

is going to stay the track with our CleanBC plan, which includes the carbon tax, which

includes substantial rebates to British Columbians, including 100 percent of the increase

going back as part of the climate action tax credit.”

Well, let’s look into what former Minister Heyman had to say about it. Let’s see.

“Stay on track with our CleanBC plan.” Well, that’s funded by carbon tax, which Bill

8 would get rid of. “Substantial rebates to British Columbia with the climate action

tax credit.” That’s already been confirmed by the minister as gone.

It sounds like this is an NDP government that is struggling to figure out where exactly

they stand on this, but that’s okay. We obviously want to see the carbon tax removed,

but we’d like to see some transparency on it.

We would like to understand what the government’s plans are, because the government,

as of March 4, said they were working on a plan and had a plan if the federal rules

changed. That’s what they said on page 66. Yet here we stand today, and they can’t

articulate what that plan is, other than that they need the rates to go to zero. But

they won’t tell us…. Does that mean we jump up to a $13 billion deficit? Does that

mean that it’s only low-income people that will see their programs and their supports

cut but other spending for CleanBC stays in place?

I think it’s important, because those quotes I just read out…. It shows just how wide

this government keeps changing where they stand on things like this. It’s critically

important, because this is a government that’s telling us that industry is going to

continue to pay the carbon tax, yet they say they have a plan to aggressively expand

industry, except the minister in charge of that was supposed to bring legislation

to this House about the energy regulator, and we still haven’t seen that four months

after he first talked about bringing that legislation to this House.

We’re not sure what to make of it, because the minister now was the minister in 2013

who one day was in favour of Kinder Morgan and the next day was standing in my riding

in Kamloops and said they were no longer in favour of Kinder Morgan. So consistency

of where you stand on resource development in B.C. and how you’re going to apply taxation

actually matters.

[4:20 p.m.]

Capital doesn’t like risk. Capital wants to know what exactly is going to happen in

a reasonable sense of stability. When they see a litany of quotes like this and actions

that contradict each other, it doesn’t give that stability and comfort to the investment

climate that we so desperately need.

Now, the climate action tax credit, again by this minister’s own numbers, was supposed

to go to 65 percent of the households in British Columbia. So 100 percent of the households

didn’t get the $1,000 grocery rebate promised by this government. Ironically, that

would be about $1.8 billion, about the same amount as they won’t tell us what they’re

going to do with, with the carbon tax revenue either. But 65 percent of households

will no longer see their climate action tax credit come to them: $440 a single, $680

to a single parent, $613 for a multi-parent family.

The government’s target was supposed to be to try to get 80 percent of residents up

to that, receiving those types of dollars back. The government will say, and the government

has said repeatedly…. And I’ve asked multiple times. When they say the answer back,

when they say they will look at getting rid of the consumer carbon tax, it’s that

they’re going to ensure industrial emitters still pay.

Well I think it’s important that people at home understand what that actually means.

Every time we tried canvassing that, especially in question period, and said, “Well,

are you planning on putting $3 billion onto industry…?” Because right now they only

pay about $200 million, and people in the rest of B.C. are surprised to find out that’s

all industry pays. But it’s because there was a shift to a new output-based pricing

system that syncs up to a lot of what the federal rules are.

I’ll simplify it. It essentially says that each industry gets an emission target standard,

and if they hit that target standard that’s supposed to be considered global-leading

for emission profile for their industry, they don’t pay carbon tax. It was only the

consumers paying carbon tax in B.C. for a long time. Because previous to the output-based

pricing system….

Even when carbon tax went to $50 from $30, when it was capped and revenue-neutral….

Then this government came in and removed it being revenue-neutral and started the

hike to $50 before the feds even started talking about carbon tax. Industry was capped

at $30. People at home were paying $50; industry was paying $30. That’s been brought

up in this chamber all along.

I don’t actually fundamentally have an issue with that. I had an issue with how the

government failed to ever want to actually acknowledge that. They would grudgingly

acknowledge it whenever you questioned the minister.

I would follow the carbon tax ball bouncing around with CleanBC because the government

did a great job creating this weird Byzantine system with CleanBC where the Minister

of Environment on paper is responsible for CleanBC, but when you ask the minister

about a program in CleanBC, the minister would say: “Well you need to go talk to the

Minister of Energy and Mines if you want to talk about electric vehicle rebates.”

You say: “But isn’t that in CleanBC and part of the funding envelope with the carbon

tax?”

“Well, yeah, but you have to go and talk to that minister about it.”

“But you’re the minister responsible for CleanBC.”

“Oh yeah, but I’m not responsible for the electric vehicle rebates.”

Okay. Then you’d ask that minister a direct question about carbon tax which is actually

the funding source for CleanBC, and the answer would be: “You’ve got to go talk to

the Finance Minister. That’s a taxation question.”

And on and on it went and still to this day goes with this government on this shell

game that they play with carbon tax and trying to follow it around.

We saw that in the previous bill when I was asking a pretty straightforward question

of the minister what the plans are for the $1.8 billion that’s unaccounted for of

carbon tax revenue that will be lost in terms of whether it’s a spending cut or a

deficit increase.

When you have a government that for years has played those types of games with carbon

tax at the expense of homeowners…. When they come to this chamber and say: “Oh, it’s

urgent. We’ve got to deal with this today, literally today. Because we messed up,

and we didn’t bring any legislation forward for the first four weeks we were sitting

here. We messed up, and we didn’t feel it was urgent enough to actually deal with

it properly by recalling the House because it might interrupt some people’s holidays,”

I guess, I think the public deserves better than that.

[4:25 p.m.]

Again, investment is critical to B.C. moving forward, and we need to make sure that

our industrial emitters are modernizing. But the funny thing with modernizing is it’s

pretty hard to buy inefficient equipment these days for a mill. Generally speaking,

if you go out and you have to upgrade or renew a piece of equipment, a digester or

whatever it may be, it’s a newer, greener-burning technology.

It’s just like for people at home. If you don’t and can’t afford a heat pump…. By

the way, those subsidies are funded by carbon tax as well. We haven’t heard from the

government what they’re doing on the heat pump rebates. If you can’t afford a $25,000

heat pump for your home, the reality is that that furnace you’re buying, that gas-burning

furnace, is way more efficient than the one that you’re replacing. The one that you’re

replacing….

Mine in my house was installed in 1975. I replaced it a few years ago finally. I finally

had had enough. But to think that the new furnace I put in was not burning a heck

of a lot more efficient, helping my profile, helping my emission profile, you’d be

fooling yourself.

Same with vehicles. Cars are way more efficient now than they were. They continue

that march.

Without having a broader understanding of what this government is actually intending

to do when it comes to people’s personal emission profiles in terms of the lack of

carbon tax and the lack of transparency from this government, it’s simply not good

enough. And as I say, with industry, they were making great strides.

The interesting thing, though, with the output-based pricing system — former Minister

Heyman confirmed this with me, because I went back and forth with him and hours and

hours on end of it when I happened to be the Environment critic — industry can buy

carbon offsets to make sure they’re underneath that profile, and they don’t have to

be carbon offsets that are located in B.C., and there’s no minimum price that they

have to pay.

It’s pretty easy for most industry to actually get under that, and the return on investment

is pretty good. If you can go on the market, and you can google it…. At the time I

googled it, they were selling carbon credits for, like, four and five bucks on the

world market.

If you can avoid paying $50, $60, $70 in carbon tax, why wouldn’t you do that? Wh