Should the City of New Westminster continue to collect a levy to help fund climate action initiatives or should it scrap the levy to ease the burden on residents?
That’s the question city council will once again consider at an upcoming meeting.
In 2019, council approved a new climate action levy to help fund the city’s climate emergency response. Currently, a 3.5 per cent levy is collected from electric utility customers on their bills.
At an upcoming meeting, council will consider a motion from Coun. Paul Minhas which would direct staff to permanently eliminate the 3.5 per cent climate action levy as part of the city’s 2026 budget. The motion’s preamble stated the federal and provincial governments “have now abandoned their failed consumer carbon tax experiment” with the aim of leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working citizens.
At council’s April 7 meeting in Queensborough, two delegations spoke about the issue — one urging the city to scrap the levy and one appealing to council to continue collecting the funds.
“I’m tapped out,” said Victoria Hill resident Jay Josephy Joy. “I'm doing two jobs, I'm tapped out, trying to save a penny whenever possible. So, help us; help the working class. When can we expect the levy to be removed?”
Joy questioned if residents are getting “double taxed” when they shop at local businesses.
Coun. Daniel Fontaine believes that’s the case.
“The 3.5 per cent actually gets applied on the electricity for businesses as well,” he said. “So those businesses who are applied that 3.5 per cent … have to take that and pass those costs along down to you consumers. So, you're paying it as a consumer, and then you're also paying it through your local businesses who are passing it along.”
Minhas said he and Fontaine have brought forward motions in the past to try and get council to end the 3.5 per cent climate action levy, but those motions have been defeated.
Levy support
Cheryl Lewis, a member of the New Westminster Climate Action Hub, wants the city to continue collecting the climate action levy to help fund initiatives such as diking in Queensborough.
“This is going to be very expensive,” she said. “So, I support the continuation of that levy.”
Coun. Nadine Nakagawa told the crowd at the Queensborough Community Centre that the 3.5 per cent levy is “quite different” than a carbon tax. She said it was quite notable that the issue was raised at a council meeting in Queensborough, as it’s an area that’s projected to be underwater in the future because of rising sea levels.
When attending a recent provincial flood strategy session, Nakagawa said she was surprised to learn that the cost of flooding “drastically outnumbers” the cost of forest fires in B.C.
“Forest fires get so much press as being incredibly expensive, both for the provincial government and, of course, for the people who are impacted by them. But I was startled to realize that flooding costs significantly more,” she said. “And so, I think that we can either charge 3.5 per cent now, or people can pay huge amounts in insurance rates or pay for infrastructure.”
Nakagawa said she understands people are experiencing financial challenges, which is why she previously brought forward a motion to council about equity around electricity rates.
“I don't think that we should have a flat rate,” she said. “I think it would be fair for people to pay based on what they can afford. I'm still waiting for the electrical commission to come back on that. But I really want to say that it's really, really important for members of our community that we protect them against floods.”
Mayor Patrick Johnstone said Joy had been “unfortunately misinformed” about the climate action levy.
“This is a very different thing than a carbon tax,” he said. “A carbon tax is a specific tool used to reduce greenhouse gases. It was a popular tool in Canada and became an unpopular tool. But that is a very different tool than what we are talking about here.”
Johnstone said the city collects the climate action levy to finance important climate action initiatives in New West.
“It … will pay for things in the city we need, not just to mitigate greenhouse gases, but to adapt for the situation that's coming, including increased risk of flooding in Queensborough. It will help pay for the infrastructure costs to help to deal with that,” he said. “It helps pay for Energy Save New West, which helps people in New Westminster get funds in order to make their homes more efficient, to make their homes so they can reduce their energy costs.”
Johnstone said he understands that people are “suffering with costs” right now, and one of those costs is the “spiralling” cost of insurance — some of which is due to climate impacts. He told attendees at Monday’s council meeting that concerns about electricity rates in New West were addressed in his recent motion to council.
At the Feb. 10 meeting, council voted 5-2 in support of Johnston’s motion to:
- Request the New West Electrical Utility conduct an independent assessment of its current market value prior to January 2026 and the results be shared with council.
- Request the New West Electrical Utility Commission to concurrently seek public feedback regarding potential alternate governance and operating models that can provide better value for ratepayers.
- Have the New Westminster Utility Commission include in its ongoing strategic planning and reporting back to council a pathway to future residential rates that closely match BC Hydro rates while balancing other factors that assure the financial sustainability of the utility.
“That may or may not include the climate action levy. We may find other ways in the rates to pay for that important climate action,” he said. “But that work is ongoing. … That speaks to the core of your issue, that you're concerned there's an extra cost because you're buying it here in New West.”
Fontaine and Minhas were the two councillors who voted against Johnstone’s Feb. 10 motion.
At Monday’s meeting, Fontaine said he agreed there is a difference between carbon taxes and the city’s climate action levy — but for a different reason than those cited by Johnstone.
“Those taxes were taxing carbon. This is taxing green energy,” he said of the levy. “It's actually taxing energy that emits zero carbon, and yet we're taxing it. So that is why the 3.5 per cent should be coming off.”
