Hon. Niki Sharma

BC NDP

12/2/2025

Bill 28 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

We talked a bit in my previous answer about Bill 4 and the requirements that we said must be in a contract. In terms of the totality of what the requirements are, it’s hard for us to imagine how it could only be an oral contract, because there would be so many clauses in there that you’d either be talking to the person for a long time or, obviously, that would require some something in writing. But everything with a contract can be oral or written. You can imagine scenarios where, although I’m sure that it’s a written contract that is the base of the relationship, there could be oral discussions or terms that are agreed to that might come up in that transaction. So it could be complicated by the situation or the transaction.

135 words

Hon. Niki Sharma

BC NDP

12/2/2025

Bill 28 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

The contents of a contract would be something that Equifax and TransUnion and those kinds of agencies would be able to provide fully to the member, I’m sure, if you ask what their contracts look like. What I can tell you is that through our Business and Consumer Protection Act and Bill 4, along with the changes here, we set with clarity what’s required to be put in that contract. I think we had extended discussions about that, about the requirements that we have in terms of contracts and what needs to be included on behalf of the consumer.

99 words

Hon. Niki Sharma

BC NDP

12/2/2025

Bill 28 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Like anything that guides decision-making, particularly with respect to this, decision-making would be guided related to consumers and their role in the marketplace. The idea of what kind of contract and what prescribed amount to hit would depend on proportionality of the amount of that contract. That would probably factor into the decision-making. This is connected to the amendments in Bill 4 that had consultation related to the implementation phase as well.

72 words

Bill 10 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

The Libel and Slander Act is our statute that deals with defamation law. Defamation law deals with protecting people from being defamed and also balances that with freedom of expression. A lot has changed in regards to defamation law or defamation situations, especially in the last ten, 15, 20 years with technology and a lot of online forums. There are community groups like Facebook community groups. People just instantly post stuff. There are online reviews that happen. I know that there was a bill that we talked about…. In Bill 4, we talked about online reviews. A lot of that digitization is happening, and we’re making one technical change here to the Libel and Slander Act. But at this time, when the ministry was actually looking at making this change, was there any further discussion or will there be a further discussion to look at this act more in a wholesome way? There have definitely been significant changes in the digitization world and how that affects this area of law.

170 words

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025 (continued)

The notional purpose of Bill 14 is to streamline approvals for energy projects in B.C. That purpose is a laudable goal, and I agree with that goal. Why? Because on this side of the House, we are the party of yes and because it takes too damn long to get to yes in Canada. We seem to be in a crisis of indecision, the land of the slow, maybe, where we lack conditions for investment. We don’t get stuff done as fast as we could. That is creating serious challenges in terms of investment in this province and in this country, because delay and indecision drive up costs. People don’t build things for fun in business. They don’t build them for political ribbon cutting. They don’t build them for the side benefits. They don’t build them for photo ops for politicians. They build them because they serve a commercial function and because the numbers pencil, because the project works. Too often, risk, delay and uncertainty make those numbers not work, or they make those numbers harder to make work. At the end of the day, it comes down to return on investment and risk-adjusted return. That is the cold, hard, brutal reality of making investment decisions. Indecision, delay, the inability to get decisions and Kafkaesque bureaucracy, where we never know quite what the basis for a decision is going to be, are all things that deter investment in this country and in this province. Too often we make things take too long and be too high-risk, and then we subsidize them back to life. To quote Ronald Reagan: “If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it.” I’ve spent a lot of time dealing with major projects both in my academic research and in my applied business life. I can say that in Canada, we tend to conflate safety and risk. We imagine that because we don’t typically have armed militias, we don’t typically have kleptocratic regimes, that we are a low-risk jurisdiction. No, we’re a safe jurisdiction. We’re actually quite a high-risk jurisdiction in many instances: because we have arbitrary changes to the nature of the very processes that drive the way that we do or do not get to yes; because you can suddenly have a new, nine-month process imposed midstream in the middle of a project process; because the conditions you’re expected to meet can arbitrarily change; and because there can be new, informal demands that are required of you in order to get to yes. We have a problem in B.C. and in Canada when it comes to actually building things, a real problem. Yes, I support the streamlining of major projects. Our party certainly supports the importance of getting major projects to yes, and there are parts of Bill 14 that reflect priorities that are overdue, like a simplified single-window approach to permitting. For far too long, project proponents all over B.C. and all over this country, at all different levels of government, in trying to build all different things, have faced a confusing array of overlapping processes requiring a lot of lawyers, a lot of permitting specialists and a lot of costs that, in some instances, are not directly contributing to the safety or effectiveness of the project. That doesn’t mean we should have no regulation; it means we should have smart regulation. It means we should have well-designed, well-constructed processes that are clear, that are predictable and that are forward-looking. Uncertainty and changes increase costs on major projects that have significant capital backing, that have significant regulated tolling outcomes, things of that nature. But that kind of complexity can kill smaller projects in their infancy, before they even begin. We have challenges; we have problems. We have a system that isn’t just inefficient; it’s a barrier to investment. Far too many good projects have died on the vine not because they were inherently flawed and not because they didn’t make commercial sense but because the system built around them was too slow, too convoluted or too uncertain to navigate. It created conditions where either investors could not make them pencil or investors simply were not willing to wade through an ocean of complexity and red tape to get to yes. The move toward consolidating permitting under a more unified framework is a good thing. It’s a good conversation to be happening. If done properly, with proper oversight, proper transparency and a desire to make a long-term, functional process, it can absolutely help to get important energy infrastructure, as well as other major projects, moving again. The problem is that this bill doesn’t do that. This bill picks winners and losers. This bill hands arbitrary power to government in an effort to paper over its own years of failure and years of anemic economic growth that it has presided over, contributed to and created. The reality is that this bill has been brought forward in the height of hypocrisy. This government has decided in recent months that it wants to be the party of yes, the party of trade diversification, the party of major projects, the party of the resource sector. Now, I may be new to this House, but I’ve been around this province long enough to know how wildly hypocritical that is. Picking and choosing winners and losers and then arbitrarily deciding whether and how to enforce rules is not how government should operate. Let’s cast our mind back to how this government has, in fact, operated on a subject that has raised its head again in this House in recent days, a project that this government picked not as a winner but as a loser: the Trans Mountain expansion project. It was primarily a federally regulated project, but this government decided to use every tool in its provincial toolkit to obstruct that project because of its arbitrary political direction. On the basis of ideological, partisan preference, of polling and of a snap decision in the middle of an election, this government, both in opposition and in government, picked a loser. It used its arbitrary power to obstruct that project that it had decided it knew better on. Now, the Minister of Energy has in recent days tried to shrug off the years his party spent going out of its way, pushing the very boundaries of its powers, legal and democratic, and using every tool in the toolkit to oppose the Trans Mountain expansion project. It’s a project where he now stands in this House, shrugs and says, “Hey, we’ve got to make the most of it, now that it’s built” — a project he can’t remember the capital cost of. It’s a project that he now wants us to shrug and say that this government has completely changed its position on, has gone from being avowed opponents of this project to being totally on board with dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully loaded Aframax tankers to get Canadian oil from Westridge marine terminal, at the terminus of that pipeline, to international markets, to diversify us away from a monopsony with the American market. Political direction changes, the moment changes, and this government arbitrarily changes what it’s for and what it’s against. It wants to have the arbitrary power to do that in a way that creates tremendous uncertainty for anybody operating in this marketplace. Now, I know that story of what happened with this government on Trans Mountain well, because I worked on it for three years. We saw delay after delay, obstruction after obstruction from this government and their allies, who had decided, on a political basis, that they were against a project and that the process as it was supposed to work wasn’t good enough for them, because they had picked a loser. The people of Canada and the people of British Columbia paid for their political preference, expressed through their arbitrary weaponization of the toolkit available to them in order to stop something they were politically opposed to. That’s not right. What did that cost us as Canadians? Let me tell you. This is important, because it speaks to the arbitrary powers in this bill and to how, if used improperly, they can have tremendous consequences because government picks a winner or a loser on the basis of arbitrary political preference or of friends of government rather than on an appropriate, rigorous and predictable process. If we look at that project, a study conducted by the Canadian Energy Research Institute in 2020 looked at the actual cost for the Trans Mountain expansion project and the Coastal GasLink pipeline and found that the estimated capital expenditure as a result of a one-year regulatory delay is $344 million for a natural gas pipeline and $812 million for a crude oil pipeline. That same project found that pipeline projects take, on average, 13 months longer in the U.S. than Canada. Again, going back to the arbitrary use of power by government on the basis of its political preference, Trans Mountain was delayed by at least three years by regulatory and judicial delays driven by this government and its allies. That is literally billions of dollars in added cost because of the arbitrary utilization of power by a government driven by ideology. If you look at the bottom line on that project, which I think is a very good example here, the original Trans Mountain pipeline was built in 1953. It took 18 months. It cost $93 million. That’s $1 billion in today’s dollars. By the time this government and their arbitrary power, the kind of arbitrary power they want to claim for themselves with this bill, were done with it, along with other factors, it took ten years, and it cost $34 billion. It wasn’t just the initial capital cost that was significant; it was the fact that that capital cost will be expressed in perpetuity, in tolls on that pipeline asset that are based on capital cost. Forevermore, shippers moving Canadian oil through that pipeline will pay three, four times as much as they otherwise would have because this government drove up the cost through their arbitrary use of their powers to obstruct a project. The years in which it wasn’t built also led to opportunity costs, in which Canada was not able to tighten the spread between West Texas Intermediate and west coast select. We could go on about that forever and ever, but let’s not. The bottom line is this: when this government, or any government, decides that it knows best and that it should exercise arbitrary power, we should be very wary. What worries us on this side of the House is not what this bill claims to do but how it goes about doing it — not its intent. This government is always all about intent, but when you ask them about effect, they shut down quickly. They don’t want to talk about what a bill actually might do with its unintended, or fully intended, consequences. This bill doesn’t just cut the red tape; it cuts out the Legislature and the appropriate oversight. It gives sweeping, unchecked authority to the cabinet and to the B.C. Energy Regulator. It gives cabinet the power to fundamentally change how energy projects are reviewed and approved without ever coming back to this House. It gives government the power to pick winners and losers on an arbitrary basis. It leaves open the possibility of real or perceived influence peddling and cash-for-access. Who decides, and who influences the people who decide? We have appropriate, rigorous, arm’s-length regulatory structures in this province, in this country and in democracies for a reason. They are intended to be safeguards against the arbitrary use of power by governments to prioritize politics, to prioritize friends and insiders and to prioritize ideology over economic fundamentals. While this government is positioning this bill as some breakthrough for energy permitting, what I see is a deeply concerning and precedent-setting expansion of executive authority with almost no accountability, not enough safeguards and, frankly, not enough trust by the public in this government to grant that kind of a blank-cheque authority to do whatever they think is right. Under Bill 14, cabinet can declare, by regulation, what constitutes a streamlined project. They can define, add, remove, decide exactly what that means, however they want, behind closed doors. If cabinet says it’s exempt, it’s exempt. What happens when the Premier wakes up one day, reads a book on something and decides: “Hey, that’s exempt now”? There you go. It doesn’t come back to this Legislature. No public hearings, no public submissions, no independent evaluation — arbitrary power. So when this Premier decides he’s done being Premier and there’s a leadership race, and it has the character of the last leadership race that the NDP had, and there are, all of a sudden, dramatic new potential directions in terms of where this province could go based on who wins that next NDP leadership race, whenever it comes, whether it’s this fall, a year from now or two years from now…. Whoever that is, they inherit those unchecked powers. They inherit the ability to decide what constitutes a streamlined project. They inherit the ability to exercise unchecked power with little oversight. That’s not right. Fundamentally, who will influence those decisions about the application of unchecked and unaccountable power by this government? What factors will guide them? Will it be politics, timing, location, labour model? Will it matter whether it’s in a swing riding, whether it’s conveniently timed relative to an election or if the proponent voluntarily agrees to a labour model that is the ideological preference of this government? Who knows? We won’t know. It’ll come down to the political flavours of the moment, not long-term economic fundamentals. That’s very worrisome because this creates a black box within which cabinet can arbitrarily decide what constitutes a priority project. Instead of fixing the broken conditions for investment in this province, this government, instead, is trying to bypass them for their chosen political priorities. Whether those priorities are partisan, ideological, transactional or whatever they are, those are going to bypass process. Everything else can wait. This is a government that thinks it can legislate prosperity instead of trying to legislate opportunity by creating stable, predictable, forward-looking conditions for investment in which a wide range of different project applicants can look at this province and say: “I see what I have to do in order to build something here.” Today the signal this government is sending is: “What you have to do in order to build a project here is that you have to curry favour with this government. You have to hire the right people. You have to know the right people. You have to make sure you frame your project in such a way that this government will deem it to be a priority.” Do we fundamentally believe that communications staff in the Premier’s office have a better understanding of what constitutes an economically viable or economically significant project for this province than companies, project proponents, individuals trying to move forward projects on the basis of sound economics and sound decision analysis? That’s very worrisome. Picking winners and losers doesn’t encourage a funnel of new projects. When proponents know that it’s arbitrary government decisions and not stable, predictable conditions for them that will affect their ability to move forward, they have to make decisions very differently. Companies that want to be able to understand the basis for decision-making are going to think twice about this province. They’re going to know that these arbitrary powers belong to this government today, but when there’s a change of government, will those priorities still be the priorities? Will my project still be in the same process, or does it depend? If there’s a change in the leadership of the government, if there’s a change in government, do I actually know what I’m signing up for? That’s why we don’t have these kinds of arbitrary decision-making powers vested in the political heart of governments, as this government is trying to do. One of the most frustrating challenges we constantly hear from project proponents — whether they’re in construction, infrastructure or energy — is not just the amount of regulation they face. It’s the uncertainty. Bill 14 does not solve that problem; it deepens it. It creates a situation in which the uncertainty of regulation is exacerbated by the political uncertainty of if, when, how and on what basis this government will make arbitrary decisions that can make a project viable or not viable. This bill is being sold as a way of bringing clarity and speed when it really just adds a whole additional level of unpredictability, in some very troubling ways. That includes retroactivity. Clause 12 of the bill allows the B.C. Energy Regulator, or individuals it delegates authority to, to impose fees, levies or other financial obligations retroactively. So you’re mid-streaming a project, and your fundamental project economics are changing because the regulator decides to impose arbitrary retroactive fees. Is that because government has decided they don’t like your project? Is that because the rules have changed? Again, more unpredictability. Capital thrives on stability, predictability, being able to look forward and to know what’s ahead. How do you attract investment into this province when businesses can’t rely on the rules staying consistent? You don’t. This bill is not just poor planning. It’s a signal to every potential investor that B.C.’s regulatory system is unstable, unreliable and subject to political whim. That’s in a tricky swing riding. Subject to: “Nah, we don’t like those guys.” Subject to: “They’re not really playing ball.” Subject to the implicit expectation that there’s a quid pro quo and that the right hiring will happen, the right consultants will be on the project, the right photo ops will be delivered and the right political messages will be framed around a project. That’s not how capital investment and major projects are supposed to work in any jurisdiction, and it sure as heck is not how it should work here. The kinds of decisions that are outlined under clause 20 include what qualifies as a renewable resource, whether that gets changed, whether a project is subject to environmental assessment or not, whether a project is eligible for streamlining and what level of streamlining it receives, and whether safety or reporting requirements should apply. These are really, really important things, and they’re decisions that used to be predictable, debated and codified in law. Under Bill 14, they’re all turning into moving targets, and that is the exact opposite of regulatory certainty. Let’s put this a different way. This bill trades transparency for flexibility — flexibility for government, flexibility to politicize, flexibility for arbitrary decisions to be traded transactionally by well-connected NDP insiders. I don’t mean to suggest anything nefarious has happened. What I mean is that the risk of even the slightest perception that currying political favour or hiring the right consultant, hiring the right lobbyist, means that you’ll be at the front of the line…. That is a dangerous, dangerous situation for this government to create, with the potential for immense consequences not only on the political front, the legal front, the investability front…. It’s a very, very dangerous situation to be floated out there, but that’s exactly what this bill does. It creates the possibility. It creates the concern that the goalposts might move. Well, how do you move the goalposts? How do the goalposts get moved on you? There will be endless speculation as to how different projects were brought to the front of the line. That is not healthy for creating a sound, competitive, well-regulated, stable, predictable market in which you want people to explore, advance and invest in major projects. Oversight is a huge issue here. Who watches the superpowered watchers created under this bill, the NDP-appointed authorities? Who makes sure that none of that arbitrary decision-making is happening in a way that is untoward or inappropriate? What are the consequences if, in fact, there is politicization of the process? Big void in terms of those elements. In fact, it appears as if this bill is pushing in the opposite direction, removing accountability rather than adding accountability. That’s very problematic in terms of the signal that it sends. This bill eliminates nearly every meaningful mechanism for public oversight. It chooses a broad range of projects, applies a wide exemption, takes away all that oversight and does so on a basis that is not transparent, that is not accountable. Under normal democratic process, when governments exercise authority, there are checks and balances. There are public hearings. There are published reports, standing committees and appeal mechanisms. Bill 14 offers none of those. Instead, it removes them and gives power on an arbitrary basis to government. We’ve seen this movie before. We saw it with Bill 4, the consumer protection act, where government was uninterested in actually hearing from business. It wanted to talk a big game about what it was doing, but it actually ignored completely the input that it received from small businesses affected by the unintended consequences of the bill. We’ve seen it with Bill 7, which was a massive power grab. We’ve seen it with parts of Bill 15. Now with Bill 14, we’re seeing it with the added danger of regulatory and financial discretion being placed in the hands of unelected officials. This government is eroding democracy, eroding oversight, eroding transparency and asserting itself as the ultimate arbitrary authority. On this side of the House, we did not seek office and we were not elected to be spectators. In the name of good intentions and getting stuff done, this bill erodes basic democracy. It centralizes authority, removes oversight and silences public input. That’s not okay. Our Conservative caucus stands ready to support moving major projects forward faster in this province. We want to see investment move ahead. We want to see B.C. grow, invest and lead. We are a party of yes. We need to get stuff done again in this province, but there is a better way than what is being put forward in this bill. We can get stuff done without compromising democracy. We need to actually fix things in long-term, structural ways, not just spray paint over the cracks, not just make arbitrary declarations in order to solve a problem of our own making, like this government has done. Eight years in, they’ve decided they want to be for economic development. Eight years in, they’ve decided they want to get stuff done. Now they want arbitrary power to bypass their own broken processes. That’s not how this is supposed to work. Let’s get things done again in this province, but let’s do it the right way — a way that works for the long term and a way that works for the people of British Columbia.

3827 words

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

With those interest rates and penalties for non-payment, will they align with the consumer protection legislation? I know we have new legislation, Bill 4, that just, I believe, received royal assent, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Can the Attorney General just confirm that those actually align?

47 words

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

With those interest rates and penalties for non-payment, will they align with the consumer protection legislation? I know we have new legislation, Bill 4, that just, I believe, received royal assent, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Can the Attorney General just confirm that those actually align?

47 words

I think I understand the logic under which the Attorney General was operating, and I don’t disrespect the logic, but I do think it’s problematic to make the claim that I am assuming harm. I’m not assuming harm. I’m assuming that there is tremendous opportunity in the use of our procurement processes to benefit B.C. companies. I think we all share that objective. I’m not assuming harm. What I’m trying to do is understand the potential of harm and understand whether that potential has been mitigated. That’s what we’re trying to do here. It’s the same thing we were trying to do with Bill 4. There are a significant number of unintended consequences of Bill 4. We’re already hearing from stakeholders about them, and I’m sure the government is going to be hearing about them in the months and years to follow. What I’m trying to do is flag, to the Attorney General and to the government, that regardless of the intention to not breach contract and regardless of the belief that this is about benefit not harm, there are always unintended consequences. There are always unintended dynamics that emerge in a complex, multifaceted marketplace of procurement and subcontracting and all of those other areas. That has the potential to create very serious, complex commercial issues for companies that are down the ladder of procurement, subprocurement and all those other things. Even if there is not a breach of contract, a change in procurement behaviour, a change in procurement timeline, a two-month delay in taking an RFP to market or in closing a deal or in signing off on a purchase order has very material consequences — potentially, very material adverse consequences — for individual companies. If a company is heavily dependent on labour, for example, and they’re not able to get POs signed off on and that means that work doesn’t start for an extra two months, an extra three months, one of two things is going to happen. They might be eating labour costs, or they might be laying people off. There are serious consequences for small businesses and for people. What I’m hearing, rather than an effort to try to understand what those consequences might be, rather than an effort to communicate with companies around those consequences, rather than an effort to acknowledge the potential commercial harm and the impact to people or jobs — impacts and consequences that are unintended, that I know are not the intention of this bill, that I know are not the desire of the Attorney General or of the government…. Rather than hearing that those issues could exist, what I’m having instead is the Attorney General telling me that I’m assuming harm. I’m trying to point out serious material issues with consequences for small businesses and for people, and I’m being told that, somehow, I’m Chicken Little. I really would love to hear the Attorney General articulate to some extent that government understands these unintended consequences, is making an effort to mitigate them and is communicating with the individual small businesses and people that have the potential to be impacted by these changes. We all know there’s uncertainty that’s being created at a geopolitical level. We know that, but why are we not making maximum efforts to mitigate further uncertainty created by legislation that’s supposed to be about stabilizing the economy?

560 words

I respectfully submit the question has not been answered, and I would respectfully submit that there is a pattern of saying, “We consulted,” but not actually having consulted. We saw it with Bill 4. We are still hearing from small businesses, from industry associations and from others who had very real, material and substantive concerns with aspects of Bill 4. Yet ministers of this government stood in the House repeatedly and insisted that there had been vast amounts of consultation when, in fact, they had consulted with four business organizations and much of the consultation had happened years earlier. Substantial concerns were raised. It strikes me there is a bit of a blind eye being turned to concerns being raised. If we, as the opposition, are hearing these kinds of questions and concerns, and government doesn’t think they exist, that really concerns me. I would ask just one more time for the Attorney General to please describe the proactive communication undertaken to the small business community writ large in order to make sure that individual small businesses with the potential to be affected by directives, including retroactive directives, have a clear understanding of what is and is not on the table. Again, I reiterate that even in the absence of directives being issued, even in the absence of contracts being breached, there is an effect on the marketplace, on individual small businesses that are making or not making or delaying or deferring or changing decisions in a time of uncertainty. Yes, they are responding to the uncertainty created by the broader geo-economic, geopolitical situation we’re dealing with. They’re also responding to the uncertainty created by government itself. I’m asking in very good faith, with the desire to understand: what effort has been made to communicate to those small businesses? If the answer is none, just say none.

307 words

I don’t dispute the Attorney General’s characterization that at such time as there is a directive, there will need to be those explanations provided. What I want to point out is that it doesn’t matter if a directive has been issued when it comes to creating those questions, creating that uncertainty. What matters is whether there is the perception, the concern, the justified true belief that there could be changes forthcoming. The possibility of forthcoming changes, the uncertainty about what they could be and what implications they could have at a commercial level have material effects in terms of contracting and subcontracting behaviour. They have material effects in terms of creating reasons for business not to move, reasons for contracts not to be signed, reasons for things to be delayed because there is a justifiable concern that a decision made in the coming days could affect a contract signed mere weeks ago. We canvassed, extensively, the issue around retroactivity and unintended consequences when we addressed Bill 4 in the House, and there was a disinterest in addressing those consequences from government. I do think it’s really, really important for us to understand the consequences around change, the consequences around uncertainty, the consequences around not knowing what is coming. Those are real consequences, and they’re particularly real for individual small businesses at the bottom of a pyramid of contracting and subcontracting, where they don’t have access to government. They aren’t at the top of industry associations. They aren’t in the test meetings. Out there in the province, there are countless different small businesses which, if they know anything about this bill, maybe know that there’s this possibility of retroactivity. As a result of that and other drivers of uncertainty, they’re sitting on the sidelines. There may well be costs to them sitting on the sidelines — hard costs, soft costs, opportunity costs. Again, I’m just trying to understand, in the development of this bill and in the time between weeks ago and today, what efforts are being made to try to communicate to and provide stability to those individual small businesses that don’t know what to expect and for which this kind of language only adds to the uncertainty.

368 words

Families in British Columbia are reeling. I don’t know about you, but every time I go and fill up my tank with gas or go to the grocery store to buy groceries, I am shocked. It seems to be higher than it was the previous day or the previous week. Do you remember when you could go get a bag of groceries for $5, then $10, then $20? I think we’re up around $50 or $60 now for basics for families. I just don’t know how young people can do it anymore. Now that’s not just a political talking point. It’s a stark daily reality for countless British Columbians, in every corner of this province. Whether you live in the Lower Mainland, the Interior, the North or on the Island, the story is the same. The cost of living is rising faster than people can keep up. I just read a headline today that the fastest inflation is going to be with food prices, up about 3 to 5 percent this next year. Families can look forward to paying an extra $800 for groceries next year. Soaring grocery prices, surging rents and shrinking paycheques are leaving families with less and less at the end of the month. It’s not a matter of budgeting better. It’s a matter of not having enough to begin with. We’ve heard the numbers time and time again, but they remain deeply troubling. Almost 50 percent of people in B.C. are only $200 away from being unable to pay their bills. That’s half our population living on the financial edge. Nearly three-quarters of British Columbians have cut back on spending or delayed a major purchase, not because they want to, but because they have to. Families are hunkering down, sacrificing long-term plans and making incredibly difficult choices just to stay afloat in the area of economic uncertainty. Perhaps most alarming of all, and you’ve heard this stat before, one in two of our young people are considering leaving this province entirely. They just can’t afford to live here anymore. They don’t see a future. They’re giving up on the dream of building a life in their own communities because housing prices are now the highest in Canada. Not only that but this government now is imposing another hydro rate increase, this time by another 7½ percent over the next two years. It just never stops. This isn’t just about economics anymore. It’s also about trust. A recent headline captured the growing sentiment perfectly: “Confidence in Government Crashes as Canadians Feel Left Behind.” Public trust in political leadership is plummeting to new depths, and it’s not hard to see why. Poll after poll suggests that the biggest issue isn’t just policy failure; it’s behaviour. It’s a growing sense that politicians are out of touch with everyday realities. They’re not listening, they’re not responding and not doing enough to earn the trust of the very people that they represent. People aren’t just frustrated; they’re losing faith. That should alarm every single one of us in this chamber. Those of us in this Legislature work hard. We need to work hard to regain the confidence of the public. We know that trust is not given; it is earned. And right now, after years of rising costs, broken promises and political inaction, that trust is so fragile. That’s why this amendment to Bill 5 is so important. This will go a long way to hopefully rebuilding the trust that we have lost. Supporting this amendment is an opportunity to start rebuilding that trust in a very meaningful way. It’s a chance to show British Columbians that we hear them and we understand the pressure they’re under and that we are ready to act in their best interest. This amendment isn’t just about numbers on a tax form. It’s about sending a message to the people of this province and giving them hope again that their government is on their side to help them through this difficult time. Rebuilding credibility doesn’t happen overnight. It takes consistent, compassionate and thoughtful decision-making, especially in times of crisis. Believe me, we’ve been hearing about it over and over again, what a crisis we are in. There’s no doubt about it. With the tariffs that may come in, that’s not going to help the situation, but interest rates and all those things are not helping our young people either. This is one of those moments. By everyone in this House supporting this amendment, we begin to shift the narrative not just with words but the most important thing, and that is action. What do they say? Put your money where your mouth is. We demonstrate that we are capable of setting aside partisan differences to what is right for the families who are struggling to make ends meet — those families that we went out and campaigned with and made promises to about changing things in this province. We need to do it now. I truly hope this government will rise to the occasion and show the compassion that the people of this province so desperately need in these times. British Columbians are watching, and they’re hoping that someone in this chamber will stand up and fight for them. Well, I know this side of the House is. That’s why we presented this amendment. We’re here to fight for the people of British Columbia. I’m hoping we can get the same reaction on the other side of the House. Let’s not miss this moment. Our constituents aren’t asking for luxury; they’re asking for the basics. They want to afford a roof over their heads, food on their tables and heat in their homes. These are fundamental needs that should be met in a province as resilient and resource-rich as British Columbia, yet more and more families have to make impossible choices. When working families, seniors, students and vulnerable individuals are feeling the pinch, it’s a clear sign that our system has failed, but not only the system. We’re part of the system. We’re failing the people of British Columbia. British Columbians are carrying some of the highest per-capita consumer debt in the entire country. In fact, a recent study by Savvy New Canadians found that Vancouver tops the list, holding the highest per-capita consumer debt of any city in Canada. Now, that’s not a badge of honour; it’s a red flag. It begs the question: why is this happening? The answer is simple and deeply concerning. You probably know them. Many British Columbians are being forced to rely on credit cards and lines of credit just to cover the basic necessities of life — shameful in a province like British Columbia — like food, gas, housing and utilities. I don’t see boats or a Mercedes-Benz on that list. It’s the basic necessities, ladies and gentlemen, and we’ve got to change what we’re doing. For far too many families, debt has become a survival tool, not a financial strategy. People aren’t taking on debt to fund extravagant lifestyles. They’re doing it because their incomes aren’t keeping pace with the rising cost of living. At the end of the day, government is one of the biggest problems with inflation. We borrow too much; we print too much. Too much money in the system is what causes the inflation, so we need to change the system. When the essentials of daily life are out of reach without borrowing, something is seriously broken in the economic framework of our province. This amendment will go a long way to helping those people to deal with some of the issues. And $500 may not be much for you and me at this particular point in our lives, but it is for those families and those people that are trying to make ends meet. That’s why I rise in the House today to speak in support of the amendment, which will amend Bill 5 and offer real and immediate relief to British Columbians by putting money back into the pockets of those who really need it. This amendment offers a clear and practical solution to help ease the financial burden so many British Columbians are facing. It proposes an increase of the basic personal exemption amount that individuals can claim on their income tax. In simple terms, this change would result in a $500 tax cut for every hard-working, stretched-thin member of our community. For a household with two incomes, it adds up to $1,000 in real, tangible savings. Every single year that will be in place, and they’ll get that savings — every single year. That’s a car payment. That’s two weeks’ worth of groceries. That’s enough to breathe, and that’s all they’re asking. They want a little bit of room, a little bit of wiggle room to help them over the coming year. It’s not just a one-time cheque that disappears in a flash. This is a permanent relief built into the tax code, locked in year after year, as I’ve said. This is a permanent adjustment that would provide ongoing relief to families across the province, helping them keep more of their hard-earned money where it belongs: in their pockets. Recently I had a thought here. Personal exemptions are great. In 2002 — I don’t know if you know this — the low-income measure, poverty level, basically was $28,514 for a single-person household. That was in 2002. With inflation, we’re probably up closer to $30,000 now, but let’s leave it alone at that. This amendment will bring the personal exemption to just over $22,000, still $6,000 short of what people believe the poverty level is in British Columbia. So even though this amendment is changing the personal exemption, it still isn’t high enough. People are still struggling. We should be looking at moving that personal exemption even higher. I personally support this amendment because it offers predictability, stability and fairness. It locks in tax relief in a way that’s long overdue. For too long, the personal exemption amount has remained stagnant while the cost of living has surged. It simply hasn’t kept pace with the realities British Columbians are living with today. We live in the highest tax jurisdiction in Canada, yet the pressure on household budgets continues to mount. This amendment is a step towards rebalancing that equation. It’s not just about cutting taxes. It’s about restoring fairness and helping people breathe a little easier and acknowledging that government has a responsibility to its citizens to ease the load, not add to it. We do that enough every day in this House. We need to help ease the burden of our citizens. Let me be very clear. This is not a tax giveaway to the wealthy. This is not a gimmick. This is not a handout. This is responsible, targeted tax relief for working families who are being crushed by the cost of living in this province. This is about everyday working people who are the backbone of our province, who are in our communities and a part of our strong economy. It’s about the grocery clerk who takes public transit to her evening shift. It’s about the plumber who just started out trying to cover his rent in Surrey. It’s about the single parent in Merritt working two jobs and still falling behind. The other day I rose to speak on Bill 4, and I said clearly that this side of the House is ready and willing to work with the government to do what is right for British Columbia. That wasn’t just rhetoric from my side. It was a commitment, and today we are standing by that commitment. We are once again showing that we are here in good faith with genuine intentions and a real desire to collaborate for the benefit of the people we serve. Our hand is still out. We’re ready to work with you when you’re ready. This isn’t about scoring political points either. I think that may have been done during the election campaign. It’s about responding to the urgent needs of families who are struggling. This side of the House is extending a hand of cooperation because we believe that when people are hurting, the responsibility to act transcends party lines. We are putting forward a practical, concrete solution, one that directly addresses affordability and aligns with the very promise made by the Premier himself. We’re not just criticizing; we want to contribute. It’s very important for us to do that. We are offering a path forward that is both compassionate and fiscally responsible. The question now is whether the government will take that hand, rise to the occasion and follow through on the commitments made to the people of British Columbia, the people that they’re here to serve. Last year the Premier promised families a $1,000 annual grocery rebate. Some have suggested it was a blatant bribe. Water under the bridge for me; it doesn’t matter at this point. But after the election, that promise has quietly disappeared. Remember the commitment I made earlier? Confidence in government crashes as Canadians feel left behind. This bill will help rectify that broken promise. It brings back the grocery rebate, but this time to reduce income taxes, not one-time cheques. It provides certainty, it provides consistency, and it helps now — not in 18 months, not in the next election cycle or the next campaign cycle. Now it is a genuine reform to our tax system, one that ensures British Columbians keep more of their money without having to apply for it, wait for it or wonder if it’s going to be clawed back again. It is cleaner. It is more efficient and much more respectful to the people we serve in this great province. Just a few months ago the Premier stood before British Columbians and said people need help now so they can get ahead. I don’t even think it’s a matter of getting ahead. It’s a matter of trying to catch up with what’s been going on in this province with inflation and the cost of living. I don’t even think they’re trying to get ahead. They’re just trying to catch up. He made it very clear that relief shouldn’t be delayed, that action must be taken immediately to support families across this province, or we’re going to have more families leave this province. As I mentioned earlier, one in two young people wants to leave this province. I don’t want any more of my children leaving. I don’t think any of you want any of your children leaving this wonderful province either. We need them here to continue to build this province, to strengthen this province. He made it clear that relief shouldn’t be delayed, that action must be taken immediately to support families across this province. He also said, and I quote: “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the year after that and the year after that.” Well, this amendment will help the Premier fulfil his promise to the citizens of this province. Let’s build the trust with the people again, and let’s get this done. That’s not vague. That’s not aspirational. That’s a clear and measurable promise to the people of British Columbia. Today we are putting forward this amendment that can fulfil that very promise, and we can grasp hands and work together and show the people of British Columbia that we’re prepared to do things that need to be done for them. If this government is willing to work with us, if they are serious about their commitment, then this amendment delivers exactly what the Premier pledged: real, lasting relief for every citizen and every family in this province. Let’s not forget what else the Premier said: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away.” Well, so far, it has been about six months, and they haven’t got it yet. You know what? Under our plan, bringing this amendment in as quickly as we can, we can get that working for them as quickly as we can. Especially when you change the personal exemption amount, it can happen almost within months. We can get this working for them. These are not words buried in a policy document. They were front and centre in this message to the public. Now we are offering that support right here, right now. This amendment provides that relief. It offers families the $1,000 tax cut not as a temporary one-time gesture, as we said, but as a permanent change that puts money back in the pockets year after year. I say directly to the Premier and to his government: keep your word. Stand behind the promises you made. Support this bill. Yes, it’s going to take some courage on your part, but I challenge you to stand when we stand and say aye to this bill. I’m hoping that you will be there with us. Support this bill. Stop pushing help down the road and start delivering it today. British Columbians are watching. They lack trust in government. This is a time to get together, hand in hand, and do what’s right for this province. They deserve action not tomorrow, not in the next budget cycle, as I said, but today. We all know the reality outside these walls, and I’ve spoken a bit about it. It’s impossible to ignore. Every one of us, if we’re paying attention, has heard the same stories from our constituents, our neighbours, our friends. People are skipping meals so their kids can eat. Seniors are stretching a single can of soup into two meals. Parents are working two, sometimes three jobs, not for the luxuries but just to make rent, buy groceries and cover the basics. The dream of stability, of building a life with some sense of security, feels further out of reach than ever before for so many British Columbians. Groceries have never been more expensive. You can walk into a store with $100 and leave with only a few bags of the essentials. According to the latest forecast, food price inflation is expected to rise between 3 to 5 percent in 2025. For a family of four, that’s an increase of $800 just for the food. Even if we pass this and get this amendment in, that amendment is just going to cover the increase in cost of the food that they’re going to have to pay for this next year. There are no luxuries. They’re barely keeping up. Not for vacations, not for savings or extracurriculars for the kids, just food. That number is staggering when you consider how many families are already living paycheque to paycheque. And for some, there’s no paycheque at all. This amendment, with its modest tax relief, would come close to offsetting that increase in food costs. It won’t solve everything, but for many households it could be the difference between making it to the end of the month or falling short again. It could mean keeping the lights on without fear of a late notice. It could mean affording gas to get to work or a little extra breathing room for unexpected expenses, like a child’s medication or a broken appliance. Let’s be honest. Families are tired. They’re not just stretched financially; they’re stretched emotionally, mentally and physically. Many are at the breaking point, and, more than anything, they are asking us for one thing: helping us to catch our breath. That’s all they ask. Give us a little room to breathe, a moment of relief that might feel a little satisfying. I ask the members of this House plainly and directly, once more and from the heart: if not now, then when? If we can’t come together to offer relief during a time of economic hardship, rising inequality and growing discontent, then what exactly are we doing here? Our job is not to just debate policy; it’s to improve lives. In this moment, that means choosing compassion over delay, action over another excuse. Supporting this amendment is a chance to do just that, to say loud and clear that we are listening, we care, and we are prepared to act. This bill is a chance to unite around a common cause, relief for British Columbians. Not partisan spin, not empty slogans, not practicable but measurable help that people will feel in their wallets in every single month. I urge all members, especially those across the aisle, again, to remember the words you’ve said, remember the promises you’ve made, and remember the people counting on us to act. I am on the side of every person and family who just want to end a day a little further ahead. Well, we’ve already talked about that. I don’t know if this is going to get them ahead, but it’s going to get them close to maybe breaking even for a change. Those were the Premier’s words in the last election. I like to think that those were not the words of a hollow promise. The public has spoken. They are asking for action. They are asking for relief. We have the power to deliver it together. By passing this amendment, we have the opportunity to make a small yet meaningful difference in the lives of British Columbians. It’s not about grand gesturing or lofty promises. It’s about showing the people that we work with unity, that we are capable of making decisions that directly improve their lives, and we understand that. You know one of the things that I heard on the campaign trail a lot as well when I was out there? When are you going to work together and not work separately? I heard that so many times. Can you get in that House and help make the House work together rather than the vicious partisanship that we see so many times in this House? Let’s pass this amendment and demonstrate in no uncertain terms that we are on the side of the people and not the political side. You know what? It is going to take some courage to do this. It’s going to take some arrangements and rearrangements. It’s like a family budget. Something comes in, something goes out. You have to take the time and sit down and work the budget. We’re prepared to work with you on that. Let’s do it, though, and let’s get this done. This is our chance to show that we can do better, to show that we can be better. For all these reasons, I am in full support of this amendment, and I hope you are too across the House. I believe it is a step in the right direction. It’s a concrete and immediate way to provide the support our communities so desperately need. I urge all members of this House to seize this opportunity, to set aside the usual barriers of partisanship and come together in a spirit of cooperation and compassion. Remember that word, compassion? This is not about one party or one person. It’s about the people of British Columbia. It’s about giving them the help they deserve, the relief that they have been asking for.

3866 words

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act

I do think that the Attorney General did confirm that that list would be made available in due course. Is that correct? Okay, that’s correct. She has confirmed that. I’m a little confused because I’m hearing about an open door policy, I’m hearing about extensive consultation, yet by all accounts, there appears to have been a breakdown of consultation. Having seen, during the same time that this was underway, the apparent breakdown in consultation over Bill 4, in which this government made assurances that there had been extensive consultation only for it to be discovered that there had been virtually no consultation, that the consultation that was undertaken was several years ago, and for numerous business organizations to write letters to the government asking them to consult, only to have the legislation rammed through…. I am a little bit concerned, and I’m wondering if the Attorney General could speak to what the breakdown was in consultation that happened during this process.

161 words

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. It has been a long week for all of us already, but here we are. Today has been a hard day, a stressful day for Canadians. It has been a hard time in general in this country. Economic uncertainty isn’t just felt in the boardrooms of companies on the TSX; it’s felt at the kitchen tables of families trying to make financial decisions about their future. Do they know if they’re going to have a job the next day? Should they purchase a home? Can they afford to put their kids in T-ball this time? As legislators, it’s our duty to address this uncertainty and try to help British Columbians during a time of crisis. We’ve been debating Bill 7 today, and we just heard from the Minister of Energy. This is a bill that the government decided to drop right before we left, back to our ridings on a couple of weeks of break. It was cynical to drop that bomb and think that was a way to avoid scrutiny of this bill. And what a bomb it was. The Minister of Energy, in the course of the debate, talked about how he admired other Premiers across this country. He listed off all the Premiers that have been working on this same file as part of Team Canada. Well, I can tell you that no other Premiers are trying to bring in a bill like Bill 7. B.C. is not admired in this country right now. No one is trying to achieve this level of power grab. We also heard from the Minister of Energy about energy sovereignty and Team Canada as part of that. This is the same member that brought the Kinder surprise and tried to…. In the 2013 election, we heard from him that he was going to surprise everyone and oppose Kinder Morgan like that. We also have members opposite who said that they would use every tool in the toolbox to stop that pipeline. Well, that is about energy sovereignty for Canada, where we can export and diversify our markets. That’s not Team Canada. As I said, we were in our ridings for two weeks, and if the members opposite here in the chamber were listening, they would have heard that it’s become clear to many that the NDP are failing to meet the moment in this tariff crisis. It’s a moment that threatens the livelihoods of many British Columbians. These families I spoke of earlier have been struggling right now. What have we seen from this government as part of this legislative session so far? What have we seen from this so-called man-of-action Premier in this province? Well, we’ve had a meaningless motion on tariffs that was useless. We’ve had basically no consequential legislation in the session so far to speak of, besides the carbon tax bill we had to debate until the wee hours of the morning this week. We’ve had a budget that had nothing to do with tariffs besides using them as an excuse to cancel the $1,000 grocery rebate the election promised to British Columbians. Let’s not forget the throne speech. Remember that nothingburger speech full of World War II rhetoric? They didn’t outline any plan whatsoever for a legislative agenda, despite being in unprecedented times where British Columbians were looking for answers. Yes, we are indeed in unprecedented times. Look, I’m a millennial. I’m used to unprecedented times. Every few years, we’ve seemed to have them in my adult life. We’ve had 9/11. We’ve had a global financial crisis, a global pandemic that the previous speaker spoke of at length, and now we’re at the start of a trade war. In unprecedented times, British Columbians need and deserve a government that will meet the moment and stand up for them. Bill 7 just doesn’t cut it. After four months since the election, we finally had a legislative session. After four weeks of sitting, this bill was cynically introduced by the Premier and Attorney General before a two-week break and only after the Government House Leader introduced a motion to have the House extend sitting hours. How much more cynical can you get? How much more contempt for this Legislature can you show? We just saw more of that today as amendments were brought at the very last minute. We had the Premier actually get up as the first speaker to this bill, and he didn’t speak about the amendments whatsoever. That’s disrespect for this House and all of the members in this House. I don’t mind showing up late. I don’t mind the extended sittings. I don’t mind that we were up till two in the morning the other night doing the people’s work. But now we’re on these extended sitting hours during this session. It was all about, all along, trying to ram Bill 7 down the throats of British Columbians. So did they think that they could really dampen the public discourse on this bill by introducing it before the break? Well, they clearly didn’t. Believe me, it was good that the opposition was watching, and certainly, the public discourse only increased in momentum over that time. The real story is that the government has failed to meet the moment on tariffs. It was out of desperation that the Premier actually introduced Bill 7. It was introduced as an enabling act disguised as tariff response legislation. But in reality, it was really, as an enabling act, an unprecedented power grab that would grant the Premier near unchecked power, control to rewrite laws without debate, oversight or opposition into 2027. No other government in Canada has even remotely attempted what the Premier has tried to do. A government proud of its plan and its agenda should be able to defend it to the public. Instead, this draconian Bill 7 legislation has no clear plan or rationale, while trying to give the Premier unlimited power through the Henry VIII clause to amend any legislation or regulation at any level under provincial jurisdiction. Don’t take my word for it. The dean of the legislative press gallery, Vaughn Palmer, said: “In 41 years of covering B.C. governments, I’ve not seen a legislation as arbitrary and far-reaching this side of the federal War Measures Act.” We can’t let the NDP Premier get away with unlimited power with no accountability. This isn’t the way we do democracy in Canada. It was ironic that the Premier believed we should fight against Trump’s tariffs by trying to be more like him. I guess he wanted to sign his own ridiculous executive orders, for the photo ops. To quote Leonid Sirota and Mark Mancini from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute: “The government is trying to take for itself far-reaching powers that smack of the arbitrariness and authoritarianism that characterize the Trump administration. That administration is a threat to Canada, but in fighting that threat, we should not become that which we abhor.” It was an insult to the work you do in that chair, Mr. Speaker, the work to oversee this important place where the people’s business gets done. It was an insult to each and every member of this entire chamber. Thank goodness the opposition was watching and immediately called this out. Thank goodness the press gallery was watching and immediately called this out. And thank you to the many organizations that voiced their opposition, like the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the ICBA, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the B.C. chamber and legal societies like the Canadian Constitution Foundation and Charter Advocates Canada. I would like to think that some of the backbench MLAs seated opposite played a role, quietly, to challenge the Premier on this bill. At least, I hope they did, for their constituents’ sake. I’m sure some of the members opposite took particular note of comments from former NDP Attorney General and former Premier Ujjal Dosanjh: “This is a fundamental, brutal assault on our constitution, on our way of governing ourselves, and is not warranted by anything I can imagine.” What an indictment of this Premier’s bill. Mr. Dosanjh would never do this; neither would John Horgan; neither would Christy Clark; neither would Gordon Campbell — certainly not Bill Bennett, Dave Barrett, W.A.C. Bennett or any other Premier. Only this Premier would attempt something like this, because it’s how he operated all along, like his brutal power grab to gain control of the NDP in the first place, like how he manipulated cabinet rivals to make it seem like he had more support than he actually did. Autocratic tendencies are the default, rather than a feature, with this Premier. Now we have collectively forced him to walk back on section 4, we hope. But he claims he will attempt to retool this and bring it back. We’ll be watching for that, obviously, and we hope that these amendments do indeed come forward. British Columbians do deserve better than that. They deserve better than a Premier who decided he needed a dictatorship to deal with tariffs. Really, we need to continue to move forward with actual debate for the people and doing the people’s business here in this House, as it should be. The opposition stands on the side of British Columbians, and we will never let British Columbia be subjected to the Premier’s dictatorship. We will protect the rights of British Columbians, day in and day out. In the meantime, we also have the remaining sections of this bill to discuss. Here in this, the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, we do need to respond forcefully to tariffs. I’ve said it before in this House, but I will reiterate because it’s important. I fully disagree with President Trump and believe he’s making a serious mistake with tariffs. The last time a serious tariff war happened was legislation debated and passed, over 1929 and 1930 in the United States, which precipitated a major trade war. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act extended the Great Depression for years and was a complete and utter disaster. Where are we at now? Today was another stressful day for many Canadians. The U.S. now has tariffs on our aluminum sector, impacting Rio Tinto in Kitimat. Canada’s auto sector is severely targeted. Now more tariffs were announced today not just for Canada but for other countries impacted by President Trump’s terrible decision-making on this as well. This is bad for British Columbians, but we’ve got to remember that this is also going to be making Americans poorer. We need to actually remind Americans of that. We need to be using our relationships with border states like Washington and all of the great Pacific partnerships that we have down the west coast and many states that we have relationships with. We need to remind them to really speak out and understand what tariffs are. Because I don’t think a lot of people actually know the mechanism of tariffs and how they will impact people. I’ll point out that where I represent in Prince George–Mackenzie, northern B.C. is hurt to a greater extent by tariffs. We rely on an export-driven economy. And the U.S. market is still absolutely critical for our forest products. Pressures have existed already in that sector for years now, since we haven’t had a softwood agreement since 2015. The industry has had to manage countervailing duties, and now we’re adding another layer of uncertainty for the forest sector. We should be showing leadership within Canada to get things done, and that’s what British Columbians expect us to do in this House. We should show leadership for our resource sectors, for our small businesses, and we should actually be focused on making life more affordable for British Columbian families. The public wants us to do that work for them. The government’s bill — will it actually help forestry? Will it help exporters in this province? Will it help small businesses who will be struggling to make ends meet in this tariff war? But more importantly, will it help the hard-working families when there’s too much month at the end of their paycheques? Let’s look at some of the sections. I’m going to speak to part 1 first, about interprovincial trade barriers. This is legitimately…. It’s been spoken about in this debate already. This is legitimately the consequential part of this bill, and it should be the focus because as legislators we need to get this right. I’m fully in support of making it easier to trade within Canada. We’re a country that is bound by confederation, so why is it that trade and labour mobility is so complicated between provinces? There was a federal-provincial-territorial committee on internal trade struck in 2017, and as far as I can tell, the government hasn’t moved that file forward to any extent. Really, we could actually be leading at that table and dealing with a history of red tape and barriers that make it difficult to not only work in other jurisdictions for skilled workers in this province but also for the goods and services passed between borders. We could be doing much better, and that’s where some of that work could have been done in earnest. While B.C.’s Premier tries to use tariffs as an excuse for an autocratic and ideological power grab with Bill 7, there are provinces in Canada who are actually leading on a better path forward. It’s already been spoken about in this debate, but Nova Scotia has committed to reducing internal trade and labour mobility barriers through dedicated internal trade legislation, not burying it in a poison bill. It’s actually using it as dedicated internal trade legislation. I do think British Columbia should follow Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston’s lead on this. It’s showing leadership within Canada, and we’re seeing other provinces now take that up. New Brunswick has. I know Ontario is working towards that as well. British Columbia should be really leading on that spirit of reciprocity, because that is really what Nova Scotia’s bill is based on. It’s a long-term solution as well. This shouldn’t just be for this crisis. This should actually make this internal trade barrier removal permanent in this country. I think that would be good for Canada as a whole. As I said, Nova Scotia’s bill is all about reciprocity and making that permanent. Let’s get that done. Nova Scotia’s act is called An Act Respecting Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada. I quote, just so it’s in the record: “The purpose of the act is to remove all barriers to trade in goods, services and investment between the provinces and territories of Canada.” Let’s make that the focus of this bill that we’re talking about. The NDP’s bill just doesn’t do that. For one, the trade provisions sunset with the bill in 2027. There’s a real problem with that. Why aren’t they making these provisions permanent? Next, the NDP’s version is too subject to political manipulation by the NDP. I think there are things that could be really strengthened, but it’s very arbitrary in nature. I think Nova Scotia’s bill is much more transparent. Lastly, the bill explicitly states that the Labour Mobility Act will be exempt. This, to me, as the Labour critic for our caucus, also makes no sense. We need more health care workers. We need more tradespeople in B.C. So we’re completely missing the mark on this, and I think it can be done much better. There is another option, obviously, for this entire portion of the bill. You will recall — it’s been spoken about in the debate so far — that the Leader of the Opposition introduced private members’ bill M203, the Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada Act. That bill was modelled, of course, off of Nova Scotia’s bill. True Team Canada would be actually aligning with the other provinces that I’ve already mentioned, not the NDP’s performative approach while they implement a political and ideological agenda in this bill. The government has some options here. They could scrap Bill 7 entirely and call the member for Nechako Lakes’s bill or, if the government prefers, replace the entire part on interprovincial trade with the language from the member for Nechako Lakes, the Leader of the Opposition — what he proposed. That would strengthen this bill — certainly, the language in it. It would make it transparent, and it would help British Columbians. This is a part of the bill that we absolutely have to get right. We can’t afford to have political manipulation from a government that, we’ve seen, can’t help themselves. We’ve seen them do that before on, for example, community benefits agreements on public construction projects, where they exclude a majority of contractors and their workers from public projects, with political manipulation, excluding the vast majority of workers from these projects and thereby also making projects more expensive for taxpayers. I’ll add that they have done that by forcing only American-headquartered unions on these public projects. In the course of this debate, there’s actually an interest there. So we have to get this part of the bill right. There was a new C.D. Howe report released yesterday. It’s called Eyes on the Prize: A Game Plan to Speed Up Removal of Internal Trade Barriers in Canada. I want to just read a portion from this new report, because it’s brand new. It says: “Removing all obstacles to trade between provinces and territories that might be susceptible to policy intervention could increase the Canadian GDP by up to $200 billion annually, a 7.9 percent boost. The impact would be far-reaching, helping on a range of downstream issues that Canadians care about, like housing affordability, health care worker shortages, supply chain resilience, real wage growth, consumer choice, productivity and industrial competitiveness.” Those are all goals that we should be focused on in this bill. That’s why it’s so important for us to get this part of the bill right. There was a fair bit on part 2 that was referenced by the previous speaker as well. Just on part 2, I’m going to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which had, really, a near perfect critique of this part of the bill. I quote the CFIB. “Part 2 allows the cabinet to issue arbitrary procurement directives while shielding officials from liability. This has the potential for the province to repeat the mistakes it made with community benefits agreements, which increase costs and delays for public projects.” Again, what I just spoke of, and the business community is already saying the same things. This government can’t be trusted with an arbitrary procurement directive. We’ve seen how they’ve manipulated procurement to reward friends and insiders while taxpayers are actually hosed. Community benefits agreements have given us less projects for more money while shutting out, as I said, the vast majority of workers. We can’t let that be a feature of procurement in this province. Now I’ll move on and talk about part 3 of the bill regarding tolls, fees and charges. Again, I’m very concerned with the government’s choices. I think this needs some work here. These are definitely choices that the government has made with this section. I’m hoping to see a little bit more in the amendments, but I think we need to really focus on this section. Again, the government leaves a lot of room for political manipulation, with zero guardrails. They’re trying to target U.S. citizens and truckers with this tolls, fees and charges section. But in doing so, the government is creating some real problems. First of all, there is nothing in here that will prevent tolls from being charged on British Columbians. I’m concerned about that. It’s very arbitrary. There need to be guardrails that are built into this. Perhaps, even more alarming, though, Members…. I want to draw all of your attention to section 17 on the collection and disclosure of personal information. The critic for Attorney General talked about this at length as well. The government is wanting to create some sort of a Big Brother state with this. Very, very concerning. It actually suggests that the government could conceivably collect information on every single licence plate, what highway they’re travelling on, store that information and use it in road pricing, tolls and who knows what else. How is it that the individual who supposedly led the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is the one introducing really challenging legislation like that, a part of the bill that really is an affront to people’s personal information and their civil liberties? Overarching for these various parts of the bill is really the continued arbitrary nature. They have continued that pattern throughout the bill, of autocratic language that’s also included in part 4, that I’ve already mentioned off the top. Really, summing up our parts 2 and 3 of the bill, let’s hear from the Business Council of B.C. on parts 2 and 3, and I quote: “These broad powers raise concerns about transparency, oversight and the potential for unintended financial impacts on businesses, workers and consumers.” This is an important part of the bill, as well, and I’m not the only one saying this. This is the Business Council of B.C., representing the largest employers in the entire province. We have also heard from the CFIB, which are representing small businesses. They represent the vast majority of workers in this province. It’s critical that we get these sections right. I want to see that in this bill, and I’m not currently seeing it. We need to make sure that we are making sure it’s accountable. This is an economic war, not a physical one, and the government should be paying attention to the businesses that employ British Columbians when they craft their legislation. Really, as we’ve seen, a lack of consultation is the norm with this government, as we recently discovered in the course of Bill 4 debate as well. The NDP failed to even consult businesses on consumer protection legislation. We had concerns, and we support consumer protection. I think it was important. As the Finance critic put in a hoist motion, we wanted to have that consultation that wasn’t done properly to go back to the business community, and the NDP voted against that. So we’ve seen time and time again that even when they attempt to consult, it has not been a straightforward or a good process. British Columbians remember the Land Act last year. I can also remember successive labour code reviews where employers were actually not looked at. They had submissions, but we know that despite the report actually saying that some of the government’s proposals would be negative to employers, the government chose to ignore all that. The consultation hasn’t been done well. It has been a sham. Here we are today with a tariff threat in front of us, and Bill 7 doesn’t meet the moment that British Columbians expect of the people’s House here in British Columbia. So let’s rescind this bill. Let’s get it right. I’m asking the members opposite to listen to their constituents. Push back on a power-hungry Premier. Let’s do our jobs as legislators and get this bill right. I think this is an opportunity to strengthen our economy here at home by fixing internal trade once and for all. We can actually have this, not just internal trade to 2027. Let’s make this permanent in Canada with a true Team Canada approach, modelled off the great leadership that Tim Houston in Nova Scotia actually showed us. That Premier has shown leadership within Canada. Let’s get our resource sectors working again. In my riding, in Prince George–Mackenzie, a very resource-focused jurisdiction, we’ve got forestry, mining, oil and gas — you name it — agriculture. These sectors were already struggling, and now they’re going to be struggling even more with tariffs. These are export-driven sectors. We need to get this bill right to support those sectors because they represent families who need us. Let’s make sure that workers have the opportunities for good-paying jobs to provide for their families. We can’t do that if we don’t get this bill right, if we don’t get the competitiveness conditions in this province right. We’ve just seen today another two credit downgrades in this province. All of that is actually hurting the macroeconomic situation in this province, and we need to get these conditions right. I stand with the rest of the opposition to oppose tariffs. We need to fight back. We need to be strong in voicing our opposition and retaliation but strategic in how we do it. I also stand in opposition to the NDP’s approach to running this province. Having two credit rating downgrades today…. We’ve already had two others previous to that. That’s not leadership. That’s actually putting our economic future at risk, when most of our financial future is off to paying debt. Mr. Speaker, in wrapping up, I’m standing opposed to Bill 7. I thank you for the time today.

4173 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

3/13/2025

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

Member, the Chair already had put the question to the House, and we have taken a vote on that, so it’s decided. Thank you. Members, Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

44 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

3/13/2025

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

Members, the question is third reading of Bill 4, intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025. [Interjection.]

19 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

3/13/2025

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

The committee on Bill 4 reports the bill complete without amendment.

11 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

3/13/2025

Seeing no further speakers, the question before this committee is the amendment as proposed to Bill 4, which is a new clause.

22 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

3/13/2025

There’s still business to conduct here, Members. Could we please get everyone that is not staying for committee stage to head out of the chamber. The business will continue, of course, on Bill 4.

34 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

3/13/2025

Seeing no further speakers, the question before this House is the motion as proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough to Bill 4. Division has been called.

26 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

3/13/2025

Everyone online, can you please turn your cameras on? Thank you. We will be voting on the amendment, moved by the member for Richmond-Queensborough, to Bill 4, section 5 under proposed section 18.4 to add section (3).

37 words