Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 8, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 233

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Apartment fire in Esquimalt

M. Dean

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

B.C.’s energy export economy

E. Ross

S. Malcolmson

Sanitary products

M. Dean

D. Davies

Services for victims of sexual assault

J. Thornthwaite

R. Singh

Ground search and rescue

J. Rice

M. Morris

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 6 — Carbon tax and gas prices

P. Milobar

R. Leonard

T. Redies

B. D’Eith

D. Davies

R. Glumac

J. Thornthwaite

M. Elmore

S. Cadieux

B. Ma

T. Shypitka

MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2019

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I’m very pleased to welcome a very special guest who came all the way

from India, Darshan Singh Sandhu. He is a well-known basketball coach back

in India, and he was also my coach in that time of basketball. He’s also my

colleague because we were both lecturers at Shaheed Bhagat Singh College,

and he’s a good friend. I would ask all the House members to make him feel

welcome.

M. Dean: I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Statements

APARTMENT FIRE IN ESQUIMALT

M. Dean: I rise with some sad news to report from my community today. One

person is confirmed dead after an apartment fire on Craigflower Road in

Esquimalt yesterday afternoon.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

If not for the work of the dedicated first responders, this

tragedy could have been much worse. Esquimalt fire department, CFB

Esquimalt Fire, View Royal fire department and Victoria fire department

all attended the scene. The crew from Esquimalt Ladder 10 performed

multiple rescues of trapped occupants, and several motorists and

residents from the neighbourhood also sprang into action to help those

in trouble.

I’ve been in touch with the mayor of Esquimalt this morning and

offered any assistance that our government can provide. Emergency

management B.C. has already begun working with the affected tenants and

has offered emergency support services to 45 residents. This will

provide them with food and shelter for the next 72 hours.

I hope all members of this House will join me in thanking our

brave first responders and those citizens who came to help.

Our condolences to all those impacted by this terrible

tragedy.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

B.C.’ s ENERGY EXPORT

ECONOMY

E. Ross: My condolences to the residents of Esquimalt.

Today we’re discussing energy exports. In doing so, I can’t help

but first reflect on the past. If we were talking about Canadian exports

even 15 years ago, we would have been discussing the other jurisdictions

in Canada and our neighbour to the east in particular. Canadian energy

exports weren’t diverse. They didn’t benefit B.C., and they definitely

did not benefit First Nations.

This is the context that the 2001 government inherited and one

which they either tried to remedy or laid the foundations for a more

certain future. There are two general strategies here: extracting energy

and exporting it. It’s unfortunate that today we only seem to be talking

about exports that are politically correct. LNG, of course, is the

acceptable…. But any other energy exports are opposed, while we turn a

blind eye to our neighbours to the south exporting the same

product.

The previous government changed the conversation on energy in this

province in 2012, and we’re all better for it. We understand the

incredible benefits projects like LNG will bring to all British

Columbians and to First Nations in particular. We believe that the

status quo as it relates to First Nations must be changed, and it is

being changed as we speak, especially when they have been included at

the table for the better part of the last 15 years.

Any opponents to this motion are saying to First Nations: “You

have to live with the unemployment, and you have to live with your

poverty.” I have never stood with these people and never will, because

First Nations finally have an answer to crippling dependence. The Indian

Act suffocates First Nations when it comes to poverty reduction. It

leaves no path forward. If there is any slip-up whatsoever, Ottawa comes

in to take over the remedial management, third-party management or their

freeze lists. This is something I’ve seen happen, and it’s been a

reality for years, if not decades.

Instead, the way forward is partnerships with government and

industry enabled by constitutional case law, like the nearly 500

agreements that the past government, the last B.C. government, signed

with First Nations, inclusive of a number of resource areas, many of

which made LNG possible today.

Energy export is a solution before us. It’s the solution we’re

pursuing, and it’s the solution that’s going to work for all of us. When

we support the energy export industry in B.C., we empower First Nations

and vice versa. But let’s look at the future potential. When we support

the energy export industry in B.C., we support what is anticipated to

create up to $1 trillion in economic activity and as many as 100,000

jobs in B.C. over the next 30 years.

[10:10 a.m.]

The LNG industry will bring billions in new investment and

provincial tax revenue to B.C. With this will come thousands of jobs

within the sector and without. I’ve lived this story for the last 15

years, and it’s exactly what my riding of Skeena has been asking

for.

LNG, of course, isn’t all we export here in B.C. The previous

government worked diligently to establish out a diversified export

industry, a network of boats, trains, planes and automobiles all working

together to improve efficiency and capacity in our export

sector.

The benefits of the program are clear, both at Port Metro

Vancouver and at Port of Prince Rupert. Port of Prince Rupert has up to

a several-day reduction in shipping time to Asia markets when compared

to other ports on the Pacific coast due to its geographical

location.

The potential, clearly, is huge. It would be to our own benefit to

provide it with all the support it requires. Energy export will be

foundational to the future economy of British Columbia. It’s also the

future of British Columbians, of the First Nations in British

Columbia.

As we move forward, we must do so with the utmost care and

accountability but also with the utmost efficiency. Every step of the

way, the public needs to be informed of how their future is manifesting.

The official opposition will continue to hold the government to account

on this matter, as it did just a few days ago. The chance to become a

leader in energy export is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. To do so,

we must throw our support behind the industry that handles

it.

Finally, we cannot allow anyone to quash this future for British

Columbians — not the government today, not the federal government, not

the governments of tomorrow, not money flowing from the south of the

border and not a contingent of British Columbians who have never even

set foot on the land they purport to protect. If we stand together with

our partners in industry and with British Columbians, our province will

soon realize its full energy export potential.

S. Malcolmson: Speaking as a representative of the riding of Nanaimo and a

long-time elected representative of supporting and protecting the coast,

the energy export debate is a troublesome one. We have moved over the

last ten years or so into an export regime which is, in our

neighbourhood on the south coast, an unrefined product.

It used to be that in Burnaby there were five refineries. This was

part of the economy, part of the workforce. The energy exports that

moved out of Burrard Inlet and through the Salish Sea were low in number

and carrying a refined product.

What we found in 2011, when we had a couple of near misses of oil

spills from bulk freighters in the Salish Sea, was that, in fact, the

oil spill response regime had not moved to increase the environmental

safety net necessary to protect the jobs and economy of the coast that

are dependent on a clean coast.

When I was the chair of the Islands Trust Council — which is a

26-member regional government, akin to a regional district with a

particular mandate in legislation to preserve and protect the unique

amenities and environment of the islands in the Salish Sea, 465 islands

— we found, to our dismay, that the product now moving out of Burrard

Inlet, being exported — the energy export, Alberta product — through

British Columbia’s land and now through its waters is largely an

unrefined bitumen product.

So we dug deeper and deeper and sent letters to the federal

government, met with provincial officials when the B.C. Liberal

government was the one that was in power provincially, saying: “What can

we do to strengthen our local safety net?” Here we are today still

without the strength in oil spill response on the south coast. We are

relying on an unrefined product without the value added, without the

refinery jobs — and, therefore, a product that’s more dangerous to the

environment.

This is part of my letter to the federal Minister of Transport in

2011. “Is enough known about the fate and effects of unconventional oil

in brackish or sediment-laden waters and ocean saline waters to predict

how diluted bitumen or unconventional oils will behave in the Salish

Sea? In the event that spilled unconventional oil sinks, what plans

exist to find and remove it from the vibrant habitat on the seabed of

the Salish Sea?” and on. We asked a dozen questions in this 2011

letter.

[10:15 a.m.]

I’m very proud that our provincial government has made a strong

commitment in the 2017 election campaign and has carried it through to

pressure the federal government to use all tools to strengthen our

response system. When energy is being exported through our waters, we

want to have the strongest environmental safety net in place.

I note that the now chair of Islands Trust Council, Peter Luckham,

wrote in April of last year to our Environment Minister here, the NDP

minister, saying that those questions written to Transport Canada

federally in 2011 remain largely unanswered. So there’s common cause

here, with local government and the provincial government urging the

federal government to use all tools when we are exporting energy through

our province to have the strongest safety net in place.

I note the B.C. government’s January of this year submission to

the National Energy Board said: “The enhanced response regime falls

short of meeting world-leading standards.” And then: “The province has

found no compelling evidence on the record that suggests that it will

meet or exceed international best practices.”

This is a concern that’s shared by our Washington state partners

because if there is an oil spill in our waters, it will not respect

international boundaries. Then we will be, in effect, exporting risk and

pollution into another jurisdiction.

I’m proud that we’re pushing as hard as we can to strengthen the

environmental safety net, and I’m proud that we are working to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions to invest in the green jobs of the future. It

is our profound hope, as a government, that what we are exporting in the

future are the technology, the jobs and the know-how to meet the highest

oil spill response standards and also the renewable jobs that will

really generate a future economy for B.C. and for the coast.

E. Ross: As former chief councillor of the Haisla Nation council, I know

how important shipping is to B.C. and to, particularly, First Nations.

But you can’t isolate energy exports when we’re talking about the safety

of B.C.’s coasts, when we’re talking about all types of vessels that

carry different types of fuels that actually could put our coast at

danger.

I’m talking about gillnetters. I’m talking about seine boats. I’m

talking about tugboats. I’m talking about ferries that all go down and

could put the ecosystem in danger. I’m also talking about B.C. Ferries.

It’s not right that we talk about energy exports and just isolate them

in their own little world, when the shipping industry is actually well

aware of all the issues related to the B.C. coast.

In fact, for the last 15 years, that’s all First Nations have been

doing is participating in environmental assessments at the federal

level, dealing with consultations, dealing with the process that the

federal government comes out with. The consensus along the coast was

that spill protection was a need. It had to be enhanced, not just for

energy exports. It had to be done for all of the people that use the

west coast. There are many of them, many of which haven’t even been

looked at in the light that it’s now being looked under — specifically,

U.S. vessels carrying oil and diesel right through our Inside Passage to

and from Alaska. So it’s a good thing that safety is now a

priority.

It’s always been a priority for First Nations in the world of

environmental assessments and permitting. This is why I say, and I’ll

keep saying it, that when you support the energy export industry, you

support B.C. First Nations, because First Nations have done so much to

higher the level of protection when we’re talking about B.C.’s coasts,

whether you’re talking about exports or not.

The link is strengthening, and that must continue in the years to

come. The approach to export has to be multifaceted, because the

competition is growing fiercer by the day. Many jurisdictions are

reducing their taxes and creating welcoming environments. Our neighbours

to the south even want our clean LNG at a discount so they can export it

to Asia. They don’t experience the fully-funded push back from activists

that actually are born and raised in their own backyard. Instead, U.S.

activists come to Canada and B.C. because they have an incredibly slick

campaign that is designed to get Canadians to shut down Canadian

exports, and it’s working.

[10:20 a.m.]

This tremendous export opportunity with a head start in LNG, in

particular, is fleeting, and we will need to fight for it if we want it

to take hold. The energy export economy of B.C.’s future will be as

robust as it will be sustainable, and it will bring prosperity to all

British Columbians and B.C. First Nations alike. But we’ve got to want

it, and we’ve got to fight for it.

SANITARY PRODUCTS

M. Dean: Well, it’s a fact of life and a natural occurrence, not optional

or controllable: having periods, a universal monthly or so inconvenience

to be managed. Yet for some people, it’s a time of stress and major

concern.

Many people don’t have access to menstrual products. People living

in poverty, for example, have to choose between products and utility

bills or food. Nobody should have to choose between feeding their family

and affording basic hygiene products, but that is a choice that many

British Columbians have to make every month. Almost a quarter of

Canadian women say they have struggled to afford menstrual products for

themselves or their children. Almost 60 percent of local community

organizations say that they’re asked for free menstrual products, but

most can’t provide them.

The stigma and taboo around menstruation can also result in people

not asking for products or not purchasing them, especially trans women.

People suffer shaming and bullying that can impact their regular routine

and put them at a further disadvantage. I heard this only yesterday, and

it has been going on for generations: students have had to hide away

their products in tiny little pockets in their bags and their satchels

because boys still go into girls’ bags and pull out their sanitary

items, and they ridicule them just for having them.

Not having access to appropriate products can cause significant

disadvantage like missing school, sports, extracurricular activities or

work shifts contributing to community and the economy. We know that one

in seven students have missed school due to having their periods. I met

with Cassidy yesterday; she’s a student from Belmont high school. She

told me that she and all of her friends have left school early at some

point due to issues related to a lack of available period products. She

herself even had to call her uncle one day.

A friend of mine who’s a young woman electrician grew up in a

single-parent home where money was tight. She told me: “Even at a young

age, I knew money was tight. When I got my period, mom made a big deal

about me becoming a woman. It was really sweet. But I knew it was just

another expense. Even a couple of years out of high school, when I was

apprenticing at the yard and we finally got tampon machines, I remember

using my screwdriver to jimmy the lock to grab a few to get me to

payday. Free products would have meant less worry, stress, shame. It’s

just another unnecessary barrier put in our way.”

Clearly, we need a safer and more inclusive system, and we need to

make sure that everyone has access to the health products they need.

Those who have periods have rights to access health products. In taking

action, we can reduce stigma and get rid of the taboo so that we can all

talk about reproductive health. I’m very proud that our government has

announced that we will ensure that all students in public schools and

people living in poverty can access menstrual products for

free.

The Minister of Education has signed a ministerial order that

requires all school districts to make sure that students can access free

menstrual products in school washrooms. The order takes effect

immediately, and boards have until the end of the calendar year to

comply. As the minister said: “Students should never have to miss

school, extracurricular, sports or social activities because they can’t

afford or don’t have access to menstrual pro­ducts. This is a

commonsense step forward that is long overdue. We look forward to

working with school districts and communities to make sure students get

the access they need, with no stigma and no barriers.”

Now, we know that most school districts already provide no-cost

access to menstrual products. However, they’re usually in administrative

or counselling offices. Indeed, it’s often individual teachers

purchasing the items personally and making them available to students.

This not only results in an unfair and ad hoc system; it also means that

students have to get to another part of the school and that they have to

ask an adult for the products. Can you imagine the barriers that that

puts in place for our students?

[10:25 a.m.]

I heard this again yesterday from Cassidy, that students don’t

have the time. They’re going to have to lose time in the classroom to be

able to navigate their way through the school precinct to actually get

to where they know there’s a sympathetic teacher who’s going to be able

to provide them with a product. It’s stressful for them when they know

that they need to go and access some products somewhere on the school

premises, when they actually are really committed to and want to be in

class and actively engaged in their learning.

As school districts engage with their students on what their

individual needs and preferences are, there will be reduced barriers and

enhanced access. We know that districts already provide toilet paper.

You don’t expect each of us to take our own into the washroom with us,

do you? Now these necessary products will be provided in washrooms for

everyone who needs them, when they need them.

Our government has also engaged with FNESC about this new policy,

and we’re going to look at what it means for First Nations schools.

Cassidy told me that every day she and her friends are sending and

receiving texts asking if anyone has spare menstrual products with them

at school. Nowadays many students keep boxes of spares in their lockers.

They know they should be concentrating on their classes, not on the

logistics of getting products to students who need them. She wanted me

to know that she is delighted with our government’s initiative and that

it’ll help so many of her friends and the other students in

school.

D. Davies: I’m honoured here today to rise on behalf of the official

opposition, as well as the Education critic, to the statement by the

Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity. As a former schoolteacher and

a proud father of a teenaged girl, I appreciate the recent steps that

the government has taken to provide students with free menstrual

products at school. Everybody in this House knows that the cost of

menstrual products presents a significant barrier to many young women.

These barriers can be cost-related or as a result of stigma attached to

menstruation.

As a former teacher in Fort St. John, I have seen firsthand girls

that have missed out on extracurricular activities, social activities

and even classes, all because they did not have a pad or a tampon. So I

definitely believe in the idea put forth by the parliamentary secretary.

It is a good one, and we all support it on this side.

Our province has made significant progress in making menstrual

products more affordable. For example, in 2013, the previous government

eliminated the PST on them. I appreciate that this government is going

to be working closely with partners in communities and schools to ensure

that this approach is tailored to the individual school districts. Again

as a former teacher, there’s always more that we want to do for our

students, who we spend, as teachers, most of our days with.

However, as the Leader of the Third Party mentioned when he was

questioning the Minister of Education just last month, school boards are

indeed strapped for cash. This is a great policy, and we want to make

sure that it carries on beyond the $300,000 that the government has

given as initial start-up funding. Some of the language in the press

release about asking school boards to comply raises some red flags for

us on this front. We want to ensure that any school board that isn’t

financially able to continue with the program once the initial funding

runs out is able to do so after. It is the responsibility of the

government to ensure that.

There are a few questions that need to be answered about whether

or not this is part of a broader plan. The $95,000 grant to United Way

seems to be at least partially geared toward this, with the money going

toward menstrual products to non-profits as well as funding research,

but the details are still vague.

Providing these products in schools is great for teens, but is

there a possibility for this initiative to be extended even beyond high

school? Is there also going to be a similar effort put in place for,

maybe, universities or colleges? What would these potential strategies

look like? What about making the products tax-deductible? This strategy

would benefit anybody who requires these products, whether they’re

students still living at home or adults in the workforce.

Again, I do not want to try and downplay the parliamentary

secretary’s statement, but it is important that we do not leave anyone

out of this great initiative. After all, this is fundamentally an issue

of equality, equality between genders, as well as equal access for these

products for all who need them. A well-planned and fiscally prudent

strategy would be more than worth the cost.

[10:30 a.m.]

M. Dean: Thank you to the member for Peace River North.

Since we made this announcement, there has been a great response

applauding this move, and they’ve also been opening up as to how this is

going to make a difference in their lives straightaway. The attention on

about menstruation and the need for sanitary products, which all

contributes to removing barriers and supporting everyone who needs them

having access to these products.

With universal, non-stigmatized access to menstrual products,

ultimately women and young women and people who have periods are

healthy. They have their needs met. They have a healthy attitude to the

natural process of menstruation. This builds positive self-image, and

they have a healthy attitude to their bodies. Women, young women, people

who have periods will continue to engage in their daily activities and

are productive and fulfilled. This can be work, hobbies, family life,

school — all of this, regardless of their menstrual cycle.

“The cost and availability of menstrual products is a real concern

for those who are poor and often face the choice of purchasing those

products or buying other essentials, like food,” said the Minister of

Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

Today I pitch this challenge to all businesses, workplaces, public

spaces. What can you do to reduce the stigma and barriers to people who

need menstrual products? Can you provide free and accessible items in

your place of work or business? To you, hon. Speaker, to members here in

chambers: who can you work with? Who can you influence to take the step

to offer free menstrual products where and when they are

needed?

SERVICES FOR VICTIMS

OF SEXUAL

ASSAULT

J. Thornthwaite: Between 10 and 38 percent of high school students have been

victims of dating violence. Among students who are currently dating, as

many as 59 percent have experienced physical violence, and 96 percent

have experienced psychological or emotional abuse — 96

percent.

Adults who use violence with their dating partners often began

doing so during adolescence, with the first episode typically occurring

by the age of 15. Young women between the ages of 14 and 17 represent 38

percent of those victimized by date rape, and rapes by acquaintances

account for 60 percent of all rapes reported to the rape crisis

centres.

The most recent McCreary Centre study said that compared to five

years previously, males were less likely to have been verbally sexually

harassed in the last year, but females were more likely to have had this

experience, and physical sexual harassment increased from 2013 to

Sexual assault resistance programs like Flip the Script have been

shown to substantially reduce completed and attempted rapes. This is the

only program available that has been evaluated in a clinical trial and

shown to significantly reduce the incidence of rape and other forms of

sexual assault for at least one year.

It is one critical piece of a comprehensive strategy to address

the high incidence of rape and other forms of sexual violence on

campuses. It targets 16- to 24-year-olds. It emphasizes that it is never

the victim’s fault if they are sexually assaulted, and the only person

who is ever responsible is the person who chooses to commit a sexual

assault. It teaches girls to support and believe friends who are

survivors. And it is based on the assumption that college women are most

likely to be sexually assaulted by a person that they know and

trust.

The skills imparted by Flip the Script allow women to fully

participate in a college social experience, complete with friendships

and dating, while simultaneously maximizing their safety. But we know

that university is too late. Many boys have already learned what they

can get away with by high school.

Forty to 50 percent of rape victims are under the age of 19.

Dating violence is on the rise in B.C. schools, and police reported that

sexual assaults rose 32 percent among high school–age victims in the

months after Me Too. This suggests that there’s a serious and a

pre-existing problem.

[10:35 a.m.]

Safe Dates is the leading evidence-based program proven to reduce

incidence of teen dating violence. This engaging, interactive curriculum

uses stories and role plays that reflect current topics and has shown a

56 to 92 percent decrease in physical and sexual dating violence. It can

be used with both men or boys and females, middle and high school

students. Safe Dates would fit well within a health education, family

life skills or general skills curriculum. It has been shown, in studies,

to be very effective through rigorous experimental design.

Why do I mention that? Because there’s a caution. We should not be

using untested, non-evidence-based programs. Why? Sexual violence is a

deeply rooted cultural and social problem. Programs that attempt to

change people’s values often have a backlash effect, making men more

likely to perpetrate. Administrations might be under pressure to just

check the box and do something that is easier or costs less, and that

may result in ineffective solutions.

Some of those risks for boys are that they could actually increase

their likelihood of perpetration, or they could have a backlash effect,

which increases the likelihood of toxic masculinity behaviours. For

girls, it could restrict the quality of life without increasing their

safety — restrict their willingness to socialize, make friendships and

possibly business connections with men. By empowering girls without

teaching them effective, proven skills, we risk making them feel even

more self-blame when attacked.

Why reinvent the wheel? Ontario has a great program. It’s on line,

extremely well done, and parents and students love it. Check out

#savesexed. The 2015 version is completely on line, and the 2019 version

will be on line in September.

There are also the bystander programs. We have a very successful

one here in British Columbia called Be More Than a Bystander. It focuses

on violence against women and girls with a partnership between the

Ending Violence Association of B.C. and the B.C. Lions Football Club. It

is crucial that key messages about the unacceptability of violence

against women and girls be communicated by men to predominantly male

audiences. This program has found more positive traction on the message

of violence prevention than any other program to be initiated anywhere

in Canada.

Better education for those who come in contact with sexual assault

victims, including police, lawyers and judges, is in order. Police

missteps, in fact, can actually derail sex assault cases when basic

investigative steps — such as identifying and interviewing witnesses,

phone records — are routinely skipped. “I see it…over and over again,

just incomplete and indifferent investigations that do not try to turn

up the evidence that might actually be of assistance,” said Janine

Benedet, a professor at the University of British Columbia.

We’re told by judges that the most difficult problems they face

are these so-called he said, she said cases. Well, often it’s only her

word against his word because the police have failed to collect the

necessary corroborating evidence that would tip the balance in her

favour. We know that Rona Ambrose, the MP, had put forward a bill, which

is now stalled in the Senate, requiring judges to receive sexual assault

law training. Victims are routinely re-victimized, and that’s why

advocates call it the second rape.

There are other problems with regard to the implication of sexual

assault, and that’s that survivors of sexual assault average more

surgeries, physician visits, hospital stays and mental health care.

Sexual violence also impacts a woman’s educational attainment and

productivity, so there are hidden costs of sexual assault that no one is

talking about — and how an unreported rape can be buried but not

forgotten and rise up to affect one’s life later, perhaps because of

more trauma.

I urge government to seriously consider the 16 recommendations

from the Ending Violence Association of B.C.

R. Singh: I would really like to thank the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour for bringing up this important issue.

[10:40 a.m.]

We all know that sexual violence is known to affect one-third of

all women and girls at some point in life, with the largest demographic

being young women between the ages of 14 and 24. Also, the research

continues to show that sexual violence is usually under-reported,

under-investigated and under-prosecuted.

Having worked in the field myself, I have dealt with and I have

experienced and talked to the victims of sexual assault personally. It

was really sad. It is such an important…. These victims sometimes are

not taken seriously. I remember how in 2003 the funding was cut for so

many sexual assault centres. Having worked at one of the crisis lines

for sexual assault victims, I remember taking the calls and not having

enough services that I could refer these people to. Those were really

sad times, not just for the women who were victims but also for the

service providers as well.

I really appreciate that we need to address the immediate needs

generated by systemic underfunding. In 2017, the province invested $5

million to help reduce wait-lists and better meet the demands and wider

services — like counselling, outreach and crisis support — with an

additional $18 million over three years for continued services. These

are very, very important services that these people, these victims,

these survivors of sexual assault really needed. This was the

much-needed funding that was provided by the province.

Also, victim services and violence-against programs

through­out British Columbia shared $4 million in one-time grants

to better address high demands for programs that help women and children

affected by domestic abuse and sexualized violence. The province also

invests more than $70 million annually in services to support victims of

crime, including $16.5 million for violence-against-women programs and

$32 million for transition housing services.

I really want to, here, emphasize the importance of the transition

housing, because sexual violence, we all know, most often occurs in the

most intimate sanctuaries, such as our homes or the homes of those we

know. This means that for many survivors of sexualized violence, their

homes are no longer places of safety. Survivors deserve and need a safe

place where they can feel free to make their own choices about their

healing journey. A sense of safety at home is absolutely integral to

supporting survivors of sexual violence.

Also, as was mentioned by the member, most of the victims are

young women. The demographic, we all know, is between the ages of 14 and

24. That’s why it is very important to provide funding or to make more

campaigns targeted at prevention.

I’m really glad that the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills

and Training launched an information campaign to raise awareness and to

help prevent sexualized violence and misconduct. The campaign coincided

with the beginning of the academic year, a time when the incidences of

sexual assaults on campus are highest. It has been reported that

two-thirds of the campus sexual assaults occur during the first eight

weeks of school. This campaign meets students where they are, by

message focuses on consent and respect.

We also know how much work the community groups and front-line

workers do to assist the victims of sexual assault. I’m really glad that

the province has provided $1.7 million in community grants to address

violence against women, including domestic violence, sexual violence,

human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

In the end, I cannot just finish this without talking about the

amazing work that the staffs and the teams at the sexual assault centres

do to provide assistance to the victims of sexual assault. One example

that we have is here in Victoria, the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre.

They have been providing core services for the last 37 years. They are a

one-of-a-kind clinic that provides sexual assault integrated

services.

It is very important; we all know how important these services

are. I really want the continued support for these services.

[10:45 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: Over the last few weeks in this House, I’ve outlined the strong

evidence we have to prompt governments, both provincial and federal, to

act now to educate and prevent, and treat victims of, sexual assault. We

need to spend a lot more resources on evidence-based preventative

strategies that clearly show both boys and girls what consent actually

is and give girls the tools that they need to watch for the signs of a

perpetrator — who, more often than not, is someone they know, someone

they trust and who’s close to them.

These tools must be taught early on, because university is too

late. Let’s get these programs into elementary schools now. We not only

have to teach women their rights in relationships but also boys what is

respect in a relationship.

I’ve also indicated that there are serious problems with our

current police and legal systems when it comes to treating victims of

sexual assault. When basic investigative steps are skipped and police

are not trained on trauma-informed interviewing skills, and when lawyers

and judges have no appreciation of what sexual assault actually is, then

not only is the victim not served and can suffer lifelong consequences —

which has a huge effect on their families, their life, their potential

and also on society — but the core perpetrator is rewarded for his

behaviour and now knows he can do it again with no consequences. Yes,

often perpetrators do it again and again.

It is time that our educational and judicial systems put a greater

emphasis on services and prevention of sexual assault. I look forward to

working with my colleagues on both sides of the House — in Education,

Attorney General, Solicitor General — to demand action for all victims

of sexual assault. We know it’s a problem, and we know we need to get it

better, particularly when these children, earlier in life, are getting

perpetrated against by these people.

Thank you for your time. I’d really appreciate going further on

this issue in the House on future days.

GROUND SEARCH AND RESCUE

J. Rice: There are some incredibly selfless people in this province who

dedicate themselves to helping others when they need it most. These

British Columbians give their time and expertise without hesitation,

often on a moment’s notice, risking themselves in some of the most

dangerous situations in a rugged environment, making sure that someone

in trouble stays alive.

B.C.’s ground search and rescue volunteers battle the worst

weather conditions and navigate the most dangerous terrain to find and

rescue the lost and injured. B.C. has 80 search and rescue, or SAR,

groups and approximately 2,500 volunteers. These teams take

part in over

1,700 ground search and rescue missions yearly, out of the roughly 2,000

in all of Canada. That’s 85 percent of Canada’s search and rescue

missions undertaken by British Columbian volunteers.

Our government, its citizens and visitors to our province owe a

debt of gratitude to these remarkable people. They are vital to public

safety in this province. That is why this government was pleased to

announce last month an immediate funding injection of $18.6 million to

GSAR. This funding will be directed towards operations, training,

additional equipment and activities, and developing a sustainable

long-term funding model over the next three years.

In our ongoing support, in cooperation with the B.C. Search and

Rescue Association, or BCSARA, it is apparent that there are a number of

functional areas that will benefit from this funding support. Examples

include getting, maintaining and upgrading rescue equipment, potentially

including vehicles; communications equipment upgrades; training and

certification for technical specialties, such as swift water and rope

rescue courses; exploring new search and rescue technologies; and

providing extra supports to first responders, such as critical incident

stress management.

[10:50 a.m.]

This nearly $19 million represents the single largest provincial

ground search and rescue investment in B.C.’s history, a 24 percent

increase from the $5 million per year an­nounced in 2016. These

funds will immediately go to the B.C. Search and Rescue Association to

be disbursed over the next three years to the 80 GSAR groups, as well as

provincial programs such as AdventureSmart and critical incident stress

management.

It fills an immediate need so that these search and rescue

organizations can continue to do their essential work. Critically, this

historic investment provides dedicated funding so that the province and

the B.C. Search and Rescue Association can continue to work toward a

sustainable and secure long-term funding model. Emergency management

B.C. also has two additional staff positions to work in partnership with

BCSARA to leverage all the work done so far to accomplish this

goal.

I know a long-term funding model for search and rescue in this

province has been a long time coming. It has taken some time, but we

want to make sure we get it right. We want to build on the significant

work done by BCSARA, consultants and emergency management B.C. staff to

create a solid foundation for the right model.

Long-term funding was an issue when we formed government in 2017,

and though we have needed some time to get up to speed so we have a

clear picture of the issues and needs, this government is committed to

finding a sustainable funding model that works best for everyone. This

dedicated funding is clear evidence of that. We will continue to work

with BCSARA to instate a sustainable funding model that allows

volunteers to focus on what they were trained to do: search for and

rescue people.

One of my local organizations, Prince Rupert Ground Search and

Rescue, was recently on a call when the weather was, characteristically,

pouring sideways rain and with gale force winds, when their central

command tent gave way. These conditions are typical for the north coast,

and a more fixed and robust shelter for volunteers is sincerely

needed.

These dedicated volunteers are not only volunteering their time

saving lives but are also out fundraising for the equipment to do their

job. A tremendous amount of work has gone into organizing and carrying

out a local fundraiser so people can work with the equipment they truly

need.

I want to take this moment to thank B.C.’s Search and Rescue

volunteers for their dedication. Sustainable funding will allow these

volunteers to focus, as I said, on what they were trained to do and less

on fundraising and having bake sales, etc. Search and rescue volunteers

in British Columbia are amongst the best in the world, and the province

is committed to supporting their invaluable work.

Irrespective of this $19 million in funding, it’s important to

note that the province continues to provide search and rescue groups in

B.C. with the operational supports they need to respond to emergencies.

Search and rescue members are and will continue to be reimbursed for

operational and out-of-pocket expenses incurred during deployment. We

are continuing this valuable program, and no change is being

contemplated to this support.

The province recognizes GSAR groups as a critical resource in

B.C., and SAR is supported with direct operating costs. Last year

government provided close to $9 million in operational funding,

including $5.64 million in support of operational tasks, equipment

repair or replacement, helicopter costs, mileage and meals; $2.7 million

from gaming funds for equipment and training; $250,000 for GSAR training

with the Justice Institute; $35,000 to support administrative functions

with BCSARA; $25,000 to support travel for the annual BCSARA board

meeting; and $254,000 in liability insurance for volunteer and SAR

directors and officers.

EMBC supports the BCSARA position that charging for a search and

rescue response could directly affect whether or not a lost or injured

person will request help.

M. Morris: It was great to see the province take a second look at this issue

and decide to invest in our ground search and rescue forces right across

this province here. It is an invaluable service that all British

Columbians benefit from at some point in time.

[10:55 a.m.]

I go back in my service as a constable in the RCMP,

often­times serving in the role of search master in many searches

in the remote parts of British Columbia. Particularly as a young

constable, I would go out there with the academic part of performing a

search, with the grid patterns and everything that I’m supposed to do,

but panicking in the meantime because I was supposed to be leading this

ground search for an individual or for individuals that were lost out

there.

It was always heartwarming and very gratifying to see some of

these seasoned veterans show up, these volunteers that we have in all

our communities that partake in the ground search and rescue forces that

we have here — seasoned veterans, trappers, outdoors people that have

spent their entire life in that particular area and know it like the

back of their hand.

As soon as those individuals would show up, the weight would be

lifted off my shoulders, and we would proceed to do the search. We’d

follow the grid patterns, but we would be relying on the expertise of

the individuals in tracking. They can look at the ground and determine

where folks have been and what may have occurred. That kind of service

is replicated right across this great province — right across Canada but

right across this great province of ours.

We have many volunteers. I just look at the groups that we have in

my riding, in the district of Mackenzie. We’ve got a very robust search

and rescue operation there. In fact, Lawrence Napier, a longtime trapper

I have known for many, many years, just got his 40-year pin with

Mackenzie Search and Rescue for volunteering for all of those years in

trying to assist people there.

Prince George has a very robust search and rescue team as well.

They’ve been out there practising — very dedicated individuals that

practise their map and compass skills, swift water rescue and steep

slope rescue. There are a number of things they practise on routinely as

a result of the funding they get from government — again, this $18.6

million over the next three years that this government has finally

committed to that program. Without that ongoing training, we would be in

a serious situation, a serious deficit in some of these areas, in trying

to gather those resources together.

I look at some of the files that I’ve been involved in, where we

will organize a search party to go out and look for somebody that’s

missing and overdue. We spend a lot of time in various weather

conditions looking for those individuals. Most of them, or a lot of

them, end up with happy endings. We find the individual. It’s a very

euphoric kind of an experience after you spend days and days and days

looking for these people in these adverse conditions and you find them

in good health.

There are the other ones, too, that really weigh heavily not only

on my shoulders as a police officer attending but on the shoulders of

the search and rescue personnel when we find a victim who has been the

subject of a carnivore attack. There have been a few of them where the

grizzly bears and other animals have taken them down and consumed them.

That’s often a very graphic thing for our search and rescue personnel to

see and to deal with at the end of the day.

Then there’s the body recovery of individuals who have lost their

lives in an avalanche or in some other tragic incident. They’ve fallen

down or perhaps they’ve succumbed to other medical conditions when

they’re out in the forest. These personnel are very well equipped to

bring them out and to bring closure to their families so that they’re

not indefinitely missing out there.

There are a lot of skills that are taken into account every day.

My heart goes out to every single one of the search and rescue folks

that we have right across this province that drop everything they’re

doing at a moment’s notice to get out there and help — to help families,

to reconcile families if somebody has been missing. Sometimes,

hopefully, it’s only for a few hours, but it could be days, sometimes,

before these individuals are recovered at the end of the

search.

There’s a lot of time, effort and training that goes into this, a

lot of equipment, updating of equipment so that they stay current and

none of the equipment is deficient in any way. Again, these folks show

up day in, day out, on a voluntary basis. They don’t get paid for it.

They put in a lot of their own personal time in order to make sure they

provide the service that British Columbians, tourists to B.C. and

anybody that travels in the hinterlands of British Columbia

experiences.

[11:00 a.m.]

J. Rice: B.C. is a popular destination for accessing the outdoors, getting

into the back country and exploring wild places. More frequently, we

hear reports of people being unprepared for the conditions. We hear

about elaborate and complex search and rescues due to people

overestimating their abilities and underestimating the potential

risks.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I wanted to just convey that we, at emergency management B.C.,

support the B.C. Search and Rescue Association’s position that charging

for a search and rescue response could directly affect whether or not a

lost or injured person will request help, as well as the timelines of

that call.

I often hear of people being very critical of people who need a

rescue and talking about charging them as a solution to preventing

people from making these types of choices. But again, I don’t ever want

to see someone not call for help out of fear of the cost that would be

incurred. Anyone who is requesting SAR support is urged to contact the

authorities without delay.

As recreational activity picks up in backcountry areas, EMBC, the

B.C. Search and Rescue Association and AdventureSmart issue public

information about risks and the safety precautions that should be

followed. We’re committed to working with BCSARA to provide sustainable

and effective ground search and rescue services across the

province.

BCSARA has proposed an alternate support model for ground and

inland search and rescue, recommending that changes are required to

sustain the current program and capacity. We’ve had a number of positive

discussions with the association, and we are currently reviewing the

proposal for further consideration by the provincial government. In the

meantime, we have provided additional resources to support our search

and rescue organization’s capacity to work together with us. We have

also provided EMBC with additional funding for staff resources to assist

in this important work.

We hope that the necessary work on governance and management can

proceed more quickly with additional resources and that we have an

acceptable and sustainable new funding model in place for the near

future. The province remains committed to working collaboratively and

supporting these volunteers who do this critical service.

Again, I just want to say thank you to the selfless volunteers in

British Columbia that respond to 85 percent of Canada’s search and

rescue calls. I think I can speak on behalf of both sides of the House

when we express our gratitude and our thanks.

Hon. M. Mungall: I would ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 6,

standing in the name of the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 6 — CARBON TAX AND GAS PRICES

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to speak today to the

motion.

[Be it resolved that this House agrees that increased non

revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher gasoline prices make life more

expensive for British Columbians.]

I think it’s very easy to see that that statement is, in fact,

accurate. It’s impossible to not see us paying the highest gas prices

ever in British Columbia now and not see that it directly impacts

people’s daily lives and ability to get around and conduct their daily

lives, be it driving the kids around for sports and activities after

school, trying to have a family holiday or trying to get to work. Not

everywhere in this province has frequent and high-speed transit options.

Even in areas where we do have that, we see long waits and hard access

points to try to get onto transit. Transit alone is not going to solve

the ability for people to get around.

When we see taxes going up, when we see that we’re paying the

highest taxes on gasoline anywhere in North America, it definitely does

impact people’s affordability.

Now, I know the members opposite will go on and on and on today

about the $400 low-income credit that people would qualify for. I think

everyone would agree that low-income families definitely need help when

it comes to increased carbon taxes. But by virtue of the government

acknowledging that people need that help, it would indicate that the

government also acknowledges that they are making life less affordable

for British Columbians.

[11:05 a.m.]

Just on that program, it makes it sound as if every family is

qualifying for $400 a year. That is not actually the case. Let’s look at

that really briefly. At a $30 carbon tax, it was $300 you qualified for.

At $35 last year, it went up to $350. This year it goes to $400. But

it’s only for people that currently qualify. It’s for those very

low-income families. To see that full subsidy come through would mean

that you are a family of four with a household income of $42,000 or

less. It is not for the broader public. It is not for the general public

at large.

Why that’s important is, again…. It’s the government recognizing

that there is an added cost for people trying to just conduct their

daily lives. Yet it’s trying to be marketed as if it’s not actually

going to be an impact on people. The government seems to be trying to

have it both ways.

Let’s contrast that to what happened when we had a $30 carbon tax

and a revenue-neutral component, more importantly, to the carbon tax. In

the Interior and areas outside of the 604 region, the government of the

day, our government, recognized that people need to travel longer

distances on average. They have less transportation options, in terms of

transit, on average, so they need to drive more. They put more mileage

on vehicles. We recognized that, and we figured out a way to try to pass

savings on to homeowners.

We also recognized that most of the homes require some sort of gas

to heat themselves in the wintertime affordably, and they would consume

more to just have the audacity to try to have comfort in their home. As

a result, the government started out with a $100 extra homeowner grant.

It moved onto a $200 homeowner grant to people that live outside of the

Lower Mainland. Now, I recognize that doesn’t cover off everyone at all,

but it was a way to try to recognize and start to try to move some funds

back in.

What we have seen with this government, though, with this move to

a $40 carbon tax now, is that there are no more measures for the average

person out there. There are certainly the low-income measures. We

applaud that the low-income people will still be able to qualify for

that, but it’s only for people that are currently qualifying for that

GST and carbon tax refund cheque. Very few would actually qualify for

the full $50 that the government is trying to tout as if it’s $400 for

all.

We have to be very clear about this — that the offsets just aren’t

there. In fact, what we see is that in a four-year period, the

government, instead of collecting $5 billion in carbon taxation is going

to collect $7.35 billion in taxation but really only spend about $900

million questionably, whether or not it’s even driving down GHG

emissions with that spending.

The bottom line is this: taxes are going up. It’s getting more and

more expensive for people to drive around in this province. The

government is not seeming to want to take any action on that, and that’s

very unfortunate. They do control carbon taxation. They do control 35

cents a litre of gasoline tax. It’s about time, I think, that everyone

gets on board and realizes that there is something governments can do to

try to lessen those burdens to everyday, hard-working British Columbians

that are trying to get by, to make sure that they have something like a

warm house for them and their kids and their spouse, and to try to make

sure that they can get around town on a regular basis.

R. Leonard: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has put forward a motion

which is deceptively simplistic. He appears to mistakenly mash together

revenue neutrality, carbon tax and gas prices as a cause and effect for

making life more expensive. There is no question that drivers today are

feeling the pain at the pump, as the price of gas shot up so

dramatically.

People are at the mercy of an industry that lacks transparency in

its pricing. We don’t know why or when or where the prices are going to

be jacked up. It’s a game of chance, trying to anticipate how to best

catch the best price. But what are the real drivers for these volatile

price hikes?

Our government has been clear that Canada needs more refining

capacity. B.C. has two refineries that produce only 25 percent of the

gas consumed here. More refining capacity would help smooth out impacts

from rises in crude oil prices in the global marketplace.

There’s another area that has been pinpointed by experts in the

field. Robyn Allan, from The Economist , wrote: “It’s not the

cost of crude oil or supply that causes spikes. It’s abnormally high

refinery and marketing margins, and we’re being taken advantage of.”

Those margins are the difference between the price of crude and refined

gas and between the price of refined gas and the price you and I pay at

the pump — unbridled profit for profit’s sake.

[11:10 a.m.]

Navius Research identified the rising profit margins and higher

fuel prices at the pump as the consequence of low competition for market

share, with very few firms supplying B.C. As for other causes, according

to Kenneth Medlock at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University

in Texas, it appears that singular arguments — like a pipeline not being

built or the carbon tax — simply don’t hold water. That last comment is

relevant to today’s motion. Today’s increase in the carbon tax

translates into 1.1 cents at the pump. This one-cent tax pales in

comparison to the price hikes we are experiencing.

More importantly, the carbon tax, whether at the pump or

elsewhere, does not of necessity make life more expensive for British

Columbians. A carbon tax is intended to drive behaviour change, to

reduce the carbon footprint of people, business, government and

industry. The gradual increase to a carbon tax is not only intended to

change behaviours; it also provides everyone time to adjust and find

ways to reduce that carbon footprint without going under. This is the

formula: shrinking our carbon footprint equals reducing our carbon

tax.

Can we organize our trips to be more efficient and use less

gasoline? Can we find other ways to tip the balance so that we’re

actually paying less? Absolutely, we can, and we must. All together, the

tax and incentives to reduce our carbon footprint drive innovation so

that we can be more effective in fighting the devastating and expensive

impacts of climate change — the whole point of the carbon

tax.

It doesn’t end there. There’s also the question of equity and

fairness. A low-income person doesn’t have the same opportunities to

reduce their carbon footprint. For instance, a renter in a home with

poor insulation and leaking hot water is stuck paying a higher energy

bill and more tax. To adjust for that, there is the climate action tax

credit, which our government raised this year to up to $400 per year. We

will continue to raise it each year as the tax increases. Under the old

government, this credit was not raised between 2011 and 2017.

Now, about the old government’s myth that their idea of a

revenue-neutral carbon tax made life less expensive for people. Revenue

neutrality had no meaning, because the carbon tax they collected was not

driven back to taxpayers with carbon-reducing programs. How can tax

credits like digital arts and film credits, though worthy of support, be

defined as carbon-reducing? Targets to reduce greenhouse gases were not

met. It was simply a shell game.

Our government is taking significant steps to make a difference to

affect climate change across all sectors while making life more

affordable for the people of B.C. It’s the cheapest way forward for

everyone.

T. Redies: Well, what’s deceptively simple, using the terminology of the

learned member from Comox, is that this government continues to increase

carbon taxes. In fact, they will increase carbon taxes under their watch

by 67 percent, and they have removed the revenue neutrality. That is

very simple.

I’m pleased to rise today to speak about a topic that is important

to me and important to my constituents. That is the affordability

question that’s on the table. Under the watch of the NDP, we’re seeing

the cost of living and working in British Columbia rise. Gas prices are

skyrocketing, reaching almost 164 cents per litre in the Lower Mainland.

That’s a record high, and they’re expected to keep climbing. We’ve been

warned they could reach as high as $1.70 a litre.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to the members of this House that

high fuel prices have far-reaching consequences for families, but they

go even further, putting strain on our provincial economy. Certainly in

my community, people are taking advantage of the proximity to the U.S.

to fill up south of the border. Many British Columbians have determined

that it’s worth their time and the gas involved to drive to the border

crossing, wait in line, find the nearest gas station, fill up their tank

and then repeat the same process on the way back.

[11:15 a.m.]

Rather than just stopping at the corner gas station on their way

home from work, those who are still filling up on this side of the

border are shopping around, trying to find even a small break in these

record-high prices.

It’s a disturbing trend when British Columbians can’t afford daily

necessities in their own communities. This situation isn’t unique to my

constituents in South Surrey and White Rock. British Columbians all over

the province travel and commute on a daily basis, whether they’re

driving for school or work, whether they’re running errands for an

elderly family member or taking their kids from point A to point B. I

know when my kids were younger, I was constantly driving to and from

schools, sports and various other extracurricular activities.

Today families are facing tough choices and wondering whether they

can afford to continue giving their kids the same opportunities. The

Easter weekend is coming up, and many folks will be on the road to spend

quality time with family in different parts of the province. But they’re

bound to get hit with a high fuel bill even after a short

trip.

Summer is just around the corner, a time when British Columbians,

Canadians from other provinces and international visitors alike have

traditionally enjoyed our province’s spectacular beauty by taking road

trips or camping or hiking. These travellers have been a significant

source of revenue and driver of employment for communities all across

B.C., and they’ve significantly bolstered our provincial economy. But if

gas prices stay the way they are, undoubtedly, many of those visitors

will either be staying home or choosing a more affordable

destination.

In fact, with ICBC rates continuing to climb without end in sight,

I know many British Columbians are wondering whether they will be able

to afford a car at all. And British Columbians aren’t just paying more

to drive their cars. Higher gas prices and a non-revenue-neutral carbon

tax mean they’re also paying more to heat their homes and purchase goods

like groceries that are transported by truck.

I’d like to get back to that non-revenue-neutral carbon tax. When

our former government led the country in introducing carbon tax, we made

it revenue neutral. That meant that British Columbians were getting

money back though income tax reductions. They weren’t getting gouged

like they are today.

Today the government’s latest — April 1 — carbon tax increase was

just that, a straight tax increase. Under this government, carbon taxes

will rise, as I said, 67 percent to $50 a tonne. We’re midway through

that rise right now, and we know for sure that gas taxes are not going

down under this government. They will continue to rise.

According to the government’s own budget, taxes per capita are

going up $1,100 for every man, woman and child in this province. Under

the B.C. NDP, British Columbians are not getting ahead. With this and

the other 18 new or increased taxes this government has implemented,

they aren’t even breaking even. That’s certainly not what was expected

from a government that promised to make life more affordable for British

Columbians.

B. D’Eith: I’m perplexed by the motion by the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson. The B.C. Liberals introduced the carbon tax in 2008, and it’s

working.

Interjections.

B. D’Eith: Thank you for that. It was never revenue neutral. But I’ll get to

that in a moment. It was never revenue neutral. In fact, in 2015, the

Energy Policy journal said that greenhouse gas emissions

are actually going down. So it’s working by 9 percent. Not, of course,

the targets that the B.C. Liberals set and didn’t meet themselves, but

at least it’s some movement in the right direction.

I really believe that the B.C. Liberals should be promoting the

benefits of the carbon tax. Instead, what they’re choosing to do is

mislead B.C. citizens that the carbon tax is actually having a

significant impact on gas prices, even though they’re responsible for 75

percent of those carbon taxes. Again, perplexing. I mean, if you really

believe this, then I would say if you live in glass houses, don’t throw

stones.

This isn’t the actual case. The B.C. Liberals claim that rising

gas prices are linked to carbon tax and other tax policies as well as

other government positions, such as the Trans Mountain expansion. It’s

just not true.

Let’s look at Ken Medlock. He’s an energy economist, senior

director of the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University. “This is

not a pipeline not being built. This is not the Trump administration.

This is not the carbon tax. It’s not large enough to matter. It’s

convenient to say a lot of that stuff, to have a single thing to point

at and blame. But those arguments don’t hold water.”

Who is the real culprit for the rising fuel taxes? The main reason

for this is that B.C. has significantly higher refining and marketing

margins than any other region of Canada, which indicates a higher profit

margin for oil companies. Price increases are common each spring as

refineries shift to summer blends and summer driving seasons. Two

refineries in B.C., in Prince George, provide 25 percent of the

province’s gas consumption. The rest is imported from Alberta and

Washington state. Of course, they go through maintenance.

[11:20 a.m.]

While we don’t control the markets, we are committed to work every

day on making life more affordable. That’s why we’re increasing the

climate action credits for families by $223 million over three years.

This will leave families up to $400, which is all we’ve ever said. By

2021, climate action credits will be almost 70 percent higher than when

we formed government.

Now, if we’re going to talk about affordability, let’s look at the

real efforts this government has taken about affordability. What did the

B.C. Liberals do? They doubled MSP premiums. They increased hydro rates

by 70 percent, and they hiked up ICBC rates.

Well, what have we done? We’ve eliminated bridge tolls, saving

people $1,500 a year. We’ve introduced a billion-dollar child care

program that will save families up to $1,250 per month. We’re tackling

ICBC. We’re working to get B.C. Hydro back on track. And let’s not

forget the biggest tax cut in a generation for the middle class with the

elimination of MSP premiums, saving families up to $1,800 a year. That’s

real savings. That’s taking real steps to make life affordable. One cent

per litre on gas tax is insignificant next to the huge savings to

families that this government is bringing in.

What about the B.C. Liberal claim that the carbon tax was revenue

neutral under their watch? Well, the tax was never revenue neutral. This

is just another shell game that the former government played with the

B.C. public. They claimed it was neutral by comparing it to unrelated

tax credits for things like the digital arts and film tax credits.

Perhaps they should have spent more time trying to meet their own

climate targets and less time misleading the B.C. public about their

carbon tax.

While the B.C. Liberals failed to meet their own climate targets,

we’re investing billions in CleanBC and clean transit. That’s $900

million in CleanBC, $2.5 billion in public transit, $1.1 billion in

making social housing more energy efficient, $90 million to help people

switch to clean transportation options, $42 million for people to

purchase zero-emission vehicles and on and on. This is real action to

tackle climate change.

Now look, we understand that people are frustrated when gas prices

fluctuate. The one-cent carbon tax increase is not the cause. It’s the

gouging by oil companies. It’s constrained refining capacity that’s

causing this change. And of course, the Leader of the Opposition said:

“Our party is very much dedicated to the idea that you respect the

marketplace when you set these prices.” The B.C. Liberals can’t really

attack the real cause of the gas prices, so what do they do? They try to

pin it on the tax.

D. Davies: I appreciate the chance to speak to this motion today.

When we were debating the budget bill, I noted how the title of

Budget 2019 is “Making life better.” It reads kind of like a

cruel joke when we see the 19 new tax increases and paltry projections

for our resource revenue, especially how this is going to impact us in

the north. It seems the NDP sense of humour, though, has moved from dark

to just surreal. Maybe it’s an in-house joke, but the government has

scrapped its transparency report. They can all laugh about the impacts

behind closed doors while the rest of us are literally kept in the

cold.

I’ll tell you what. Even though the NDP won’t tell us what the

projections for their tax hike are, that isn’t stopping the people of

this province from feeling the effects. Most folks in Fort St. John and

in much of the north rely on natural gas, like myself, to heat their

homes for seven months of our winter. When I say winter, I mean, on

average, minus 30 degrees. After April 1, which just passed us, the

carbon tax will now be more than the commodity price on my natural gas

bill. While I’m lucky to have a stable job, the decrease in resource

revenues means that there are going to be a lot of people with the same

bills who aren’t near as lucky as me.

Let’s talk about jobs for a second. When you work in natural gas,

forestry and a lot of other resource jobs, you’ll be out in the

blistering cold for a better part of the entire day. Companies in these

industries also see a significant increase in carbon tax, made now even

higher by this government’s gouging. For example, if someone works

outside in the resource industry, they have to keep their truck running.

They have to keep their truck running so it won’t freeze up, and they

have to keep their truck running so the workers can have a little break

and prevent themselves from freezing to death.

[11:25 a.m.]

This increased cost, plus lower resource revenue, also means,

potentially, more layoffs and more poverty in British Columbia. A lot of

folks are already struggling in this province, and climate change may

not be the first thing on their minds.

The B.C. Liberals’ original revenue-neutral carbon tax garnered

praise as a cutting-edge approach to fighting climate change from

well-respected, international publications such as The

Economist and the New York Times . Why? Well, the

revenue-neutral tax means that any extra money paid on emissions would

be made up through an income tax cut, a low-income tax credit or reduced

corporate taxes for both small and larger businesses.

We understood that with a sudden increase in their fuel cost, it

was only fair that we provide some relief along with that. Surely, the

government must have a very good reason why they’re going to continue to

raise the carbon tax at a time when they are also saying resource

revenues are going to be low. Well, not that I can see. Not that any of

us are aware of.

The other side killed the transparency report, so we actually

don’t even know the reason — if, in fact, there is one. We do know that

85 percent of the revenues, though, that have been collected from this

increase are going into general revenues, revenues that could be used to

help workers whose jobs are in jeopardy in the face of lower resource

revenues. We have no indication of whether or not that is the plan, but

I suspect not.

I think that British Columbians are sick and tired of the NDP’s

sense of humour on this tax. They aren’t getting this cruel joke, and

they aren’t getting anything from this tax increase.

R. Glumac: Many people are upset at the price of gasoline right now. Why has

the price gone up so dramatically over the last few weeks? Just over a

month ago, the prices of gas were under $1.30 a litre. Now the prices

have gone up over 30 cents in the last month.

One of the reasons is because crude oil prices have gone up. We

know the gas prices are tied to crude oil prices, but they only account

for some of that gain. It isn’t the whole answer. Crude oil prices were

60 percent higher in 2014, but we’re hitting all-time highs today. We’re

hitting all-time highs when we’re nowhere near the all-time highs of

crude oil prices. Something is not adding up. That extra money is going

somewhere.

Here’s what we do know. There was a research report in 2018 that

looked into gas prices, and this is what it said: “Since 2015, gasoline

and diesel prices in the Vancouver area market appear to have decoupled

from supply costs, resulting in high prices that cannot be attributed to

the competitive market forces or scarcity of supply.”

The prices are not set by the market anymore. The data actually

show that since 2014, refinery margins, the revenue from refining, have

dramatically risen in B.C. and are now nearly double the Canadian

average. The revenue from refining in B.C. is nearly double the rest of

Canada, and the data shows that this is not a supply issue. In fact, the

Port of Vancouver has been a net exporter of gasoline and

diesel.

Some people are saying: “Let’s build the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

That’ll solve our problems.” Well, it’s just not true. The data in the

report shows that this is not a supply problem. A pipeline is not the

answer.

Some people are saying: “Lower the carbon tax; that will solve our

problems.” The carbon tax went up one cent on April 1 — one cent.

Eliminating the carbon tax is not the answer to reducing gas

prices.

So what is the answer? Right now 80 to 90 percent of the fuel

supplied to our market is supplied by four firms. There is a fundamental

lack of competition. That’s what it says in the report. Adding more

supply will not reduce gas prices because of this lack of

competition.

[11:30 a.m.]

The only solution is to reduce demand, and we can do this. We can

do this. We can reduce demand by creating a market for alternative fuels

to create more competition. We can reduce demand by expanding public

transit. We can reduce demand by mandating minimum sales of electric

vehicles. We can reduce demand by providing credits to purchase those

vehicles. These are the things our government is doing with

CleanBC.

We’re investing over $900 million to address climate change and to

move toward a low-carbon economy, because it’s not something we can

continue to ignore. We know that Canada is warming twice as fast as the

global average. Our children are facing a frightening future.

We won’t get off gasoline overnight. No one says we will. So we

need to understand why these gas prices are so high here in B.C. and do

what we can to reduce demand. The solutions that some people are

presenting will not solve the problem when there is a lack of

competition in the market. That’s simple economics — something the B.C.

Liberals don’t, apparently, understand. The answer is to reduce demand.

One of the ways we are doing this is by moving toward a lower-carbon

economy.

J. Thornthwaite: I rise in the House today to speak to the motion brought forward

by my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson: “Be it resolved that this

House agrees that increased non revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher

gasoline prices make life more expensive for British

Columbians.”

Non-revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher gasoline prices do

indeed make life more expensive for British Columbians. The

non-revenue-neutral carbon tax is a pure cash grab, with no clear

benefit to British Columbians.

Revenue-neutral taxation means using the money generated from

increased tax dollars to reduce taxation elsewhere to actually make life

more affordable. Unfortunately, the NDP are determined to continue

making life more expensive and more difficult with the increase or

introduction of 19 new taxes, many of which directly target residents on

the North Shore. These taxes include the employer health tax, which

places an unfair burden on small businesses; the school tax, which has

nothing do with schools; and the so-called speculation tax, which

unfairly targets British Columbians who happen to own a second home —

plus, it has nothing to do with speculation.

The NDP have followed through on the B.C. Liberal plan to lower

small business tax by 0.5 percent, but then they went on to place an

extra burden on small businesses with the employer health tax. In 2019,

this year, they’re getting double-dipped, having to pay the MSP plus the

employer health tax.

British Columbians are paying more at the pump, as the cost of gas

can be attributed to provincial taxation, at 35 cents a litre. Plus,

with the federal tax, it’s up to 52 cents a litre.

The NDP government prides itself on being champions of green

initiatives, but only 15 percent of the $6 billion the carbon tax is

collecting is actually going towards the CleanBC plan. That’s just $900

million out of $6 billion. Who knows what the government is doing with

the rest of the 85 percent? They won’t tell us, so we suspect it’s going

into general revenue.

In fact, the 15 percent that is going into CleanBC is actually

just repackaged from the former B.C. Liberal government’s plan, like an

80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, electrifying upstream

oil and gas activities, reducing upstream methane leakage. These are

just more initiatives that were adopted from the B.C. Liberals. The

difference is that under the B.C. Liberal government, these initiatives

were implemented when the carbon tax remained revenue

neutral.

Let’s be clear. The B.C. Liberals support the carbon tax. We

started it. We ran on it in 2009, and it was their side that ran against

it with the so-called Axe the Tax campaign. In 2016, B.C. was recognized

as an international climate leader for its revenue-neutral carbon tax,

receiving the Momentum for Change Award at a low-emissions conference in

Morocco.

[11:35 a.m.]

In 2017, the B.C. Liberal government included the following major

tax cuts to keep life affordable, such as a cut in income tax, as well

as a credit for low-income adults and children. But for businesses, the

business tax cut is totally negated now with this NDP employer health

tax.

The cost of fuel will only get higher as a condition of the NDP’s

power-sharing agreement with the Greens. We have the highest gas prices

in North America at over $1.60 a litre. The Premier mentioned a couple

of weeks ago that he’d consider giving British Columbians relief at the

pumps, but then, the next day, he went back on it, saying it was up to

the gas companies.

We know that the province controls 35 cents a litre, so there is

room for the Premier to do something, but he refuses. Plus the TransLink

tax is set to go up later this year, so gas will likely go up and up and

up. We once again ask the NDP to return the carbon tax to revenue

neutrality and give British Columbians a break. Otherwise, it’s just a

cash grab by this government, and it’s not doing anything for green

initiatives.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the motion and address the

issue of carbon tax and the increase in gas prices we’re seeing at the

pump. I think it’s an opportunity that’s very important.

We should make the case and make it clear to British Columbians

that the increasing prices at the pump are not a result of the carbon

tax. We know that the increase in carbon tax as of April 1 was 1 cent a

litre, so that doesn’t account for these increases that we’re seeing. I

think it’s important to really push back against that and explain to

British Columbians and really expose this fearmongering and how the

Liberals are misleading the public on this issue. It’s an

opportunity.

The issue of climate action…. There’s an urgent need for climate

action, to really take steps to ensure, not only in British Columbia,

but in Canada and the world, that we meet our goal to stabilize our

global climate. We know the impact of that in terms of fires in British

Columbia and certainly a number of issues that we’re seeing around the

world. So the issue of carbon tax addresses that. It puts a price on

carbon pollution, and it is shown to be effective in terms of reducing

carbon pollution.

We’ve seen an increase in gas prices at the pump. Previous

speakers have laid out why we’re seeing that, disproportionate to the

rest of Canada. We have a lower capacity in terms of British Columbia,

and lower competition. It’s gouging from the gas companies that are

padding their profit margins at the expense of consumers. That is at the

root cause.

When we look at, as well, in terms of here are some claims

around…. Certainly it’s hitting people at the pump, and it’s an issue of

affordability. But it’s really something to hear my colleagues in the

Liberal Party claim that they’re now champions of affordability. We know

there is an affordability crisis in our province — affordability of

housing that built up over 16 years of the previous government,

affordability around child care, affordability around MSP rates

doubling.

Our government has made a clear commitment in a number of areas

and addressed this crisis of affordability, implementing a comprehensive

housing plan, bringing in child care for British Columbians, reducing

interest on student loans, eliminating the MSP to ensure…. Just on that

alone, the largest tax cut in British Columbia history for middle-class

families — $1,800, very significant. That’s our record on

affordability.

Certainly we also look at why it is that we hear from the other

side that gas prices are always in the purview of the carbon tax. That’s

not accurate. We heard…. I’m very pleased that the previous speaker, my

colleague the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, also agrees with us — her

quote that gas prices could jump another 15 cents by summer, and it’s

not because of the carbon tax. I’m happy to hear that there is agreement

on that side.

[11:40 a.m.]

The carbon tax introduced by the previous government to address

climate pollution — certainly that’s one aspect. But our government is

taking action in terms of a number of components to ensure that we

reduce carbon pollution but also transition to a carbon-free economy.

I’m very proud of the commitments that we’ve made and the areas that

we’re moving forward on.

We are making significant investments, bringing in CleanBC, record

investments in transit — billions of dollars being invested into various

aspects of our economy. We know that there is over $900 million to make

B.C. a leader in the country, to deal with climate action, climate

pollution and to make sure our air, land and water are protected and

clean. We’re investing record amounts: $2.5 billion in the Mayors plan.

The previous government held a phoney referendum so that they didn’t

have to invest needed money in public transportation.

Investment in social housing. This is to address energy efficiency

and also help people save money on their heating bills. We are also

encouraging folks to switch to cleaner transportation options and taking

steps to take action on climate change.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to take my place today to speak to this

motion.

Affordability is a big topic in B.C. right now. Everybody is

talking about it. It’s coffee shop talk. It’s kitchen table talk.

Everybody is concerned about affordability. Today this House is talking

about the fact that a non-revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher gasoline

prices make life more expensive, and they do. That’s just simple

math.

The NDP members are spending their time today talking about all

the other things they’re doing to help people with affordability. Some

of those things are good things. Some of those things will affect some

people’s lives. There is a small number of people that will benefit from

an increase in the carbon rebate. There are some people that are

benefiting from the reduction in tolls. There are some people who are

seeing a decrease because of MSP.

But not every family in British Columbia is benefiting from these

changes. Every family is paying an additional one cent in carbon tax on

a litre of gas, and every family is paying 18 other new taxes that the

government has implemented in one way or another.

The reality is that the government is now in the position that

they have the ability to make changes and choices to affect

affordability for British Columbians. In this case, they have chosen to

add to unaffordability. They could, as they control 35 cents on a litre

of gas, choose to reduce those, but they are not. Instead, they are

blaming the other realities of potential price-taking on gas from the

corporate sector, and saying, well, they can’t do anything about it and

one cent doesn’t do anything. Well, one cent does do something. It is

another increase, and it is one that is entirely in the control of the

government.

Let’s talk about the other things that are going on. I reinsured

my car this week. My car is a year older. Thankfully, no accidents or

citations, yet I’m paying an additional $200 a year for my car

insurance. I am facing all of those other 18 new taxes that the NDP has

introduced.

[11:45 a.m.]

These things are not just for me. There are other British

Columbians that will see these things go up. It’s making a real impact

in the lives of British Columbians. The latest hit is the jump in gas

prices. As I said, government can act, but they don’t want to. They say

one cent doesn’t matter, but it does, unless, of course — as I quote a

former member of this House, Kevin Falcon — you’re doing NDP

math.

When I got home last week, I filled my tank and paid $1.629. It’s

gone up again since. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise how much people

want to talk about this and how angry people are about this. It’s not

just a matter of saving money by finding other alternate transportation

or taking transit. For some people, that isn’t a choice. It isn’t a

choice for me because there isn’t any for me in the places I need to go

in my workday. For many others who need to use a car for work, it is not

an option.

I had some people who engaged over Twitter and other means this

weekend, talking about: “Well, you should just get an electric vehicle.”

Well, you know what? I would love to, and I will do that, and I’m sure

others will as they are able as well. But at this moment in time, for

people like me who require an accessible vehicle, that’s not an option.

There are just too many reasons that affordability is going up. The

government has the opportunity to act, and they’re choosing not

to.

B. Ma: This is a very interesting motion being put forward by the B.C.

Liberal caucus, and I think it really demonstrates very much how the

members opposite are absolutely grasping desperately to try to use it to

build a case against us that also doesn’t simultaneously implicate

themselves.

First, they blame the gas price increases on the carbon tax

increase. Well, I know that math is hard for some members opposite, but

I’m pretty sure a one-cent-per-litre carbon tax increase doesn’t explain

a 16-cent-per-litre jump. But then they never seem to point to the fact

that 7.6 cents per litre in carbon taxes were actually put there by the

B.C. Liberals before the NDP ever came into power or the fact that the

federal Liberal government is one that is mandating that all provinces

apply a $50-per-tonne tax by 2022 and that B.C. is simply ramping up

gradually in order to meet that federal obligation.

Then when they’re called out by people who care about global

climate change and the need to reduce emissions, the members opposite

try to greenwash themselves by pointing out that it was the B.C.

Liberals who brought in the carbon tax in the first place. But

simultaneously, they never bring up that point while they’re complaining

about how the carbon tax affects gas prices.

Taking action on climate change is exactly why we’re taking a

portion of the carbon tax revenues and putting it towards CleanBC to

fund green initiatives while maintaining the tax credits that the

members opposite are so fond of and, in fact, restructuring them to

provide even more help to families of lower and middle

incomes.

Then the members opposite complain that the carbon tax is no

longer revenue neutral because 100 percent of it is not given away in a

mishmash of unrelated tax credits the way that theirs was. Well, yes,

I’ve already explained that. We’ve taken a portion of the increase to

put towards CleanBC. But then the B.C. Liberal members complain that the

CleanBC investments only make up 15 percent of the total carbon tax

revenue. Well, yes, I’ve already explained it. That’s because the rest

of it is being used to maintain the tax credits that they are so fond

of.

You can’t have it both ways, Members. You can’t complain that 100

percent of the revenue isn’t being put towards random tax credits

because we’re spending some of it on CleanBC and then simultaneously

complain that we’re not spending enough of the revenue on

CleanBC.

The members opposite are trying to suck and blow at the same time

on this issue. I cannot even believe my ears when I hear members

opposite complaining about increases to ICBC rates that were created and

caused by their government to begin with.

If I’m being honest, it does give me some amount of pleasure

watching the B.C. Liberals take a break from their daily prayers to the

all-knowing, all-seeing, always right, mythical free market that they

believe will balance the world automatically in order to advocate that

government control the market price of gasoline, which, of course, is

exactly what they’re arguing for.

[11:50 a.m.]

They know that even if we took all of the taxes off of gasoline

prices, there is absolutely nothing stopping oil companies from raising

prices even further and pocketing the profits. So the only way we could

control that was by controlling the price completely. That’s an

interesting idea, actually, but one I never thought the B.C. Liberals

would be pitching. I’m almost certain that if the idea came from us,

they’d all be calling us a bunch of dirty communists right

now.

I get that the job of an opposition is to oppose. I get that. But

they’re supposed to at least oppose on behalf of the people, not

themselves. Let me read a quote from the leader of the B.C. Liberals

from last year: “We currently have a government where we’re in

opposition, and our job is to convince the public that we should form

government once again.” I find this quote completely demonstrative of

the power motive that drives that party.

The role of an opposition party is to challenge government to

implement the best possible policies and legislation for the public by

ensuring that differing views are expressed and defended, not to plot

their way back into power. This motion and the fractured narrative that

they’re trying to build is just another pitiful example of how they’re

more concerned about playing politics than they are of actually helping

people, more concerned about confusing the public than they are in

supporting them.

I don’t know, and I don’t think they know anymore, who they

represent. They are flailing, because without big money in politics,

without their big corporate donors telling them what to do, they’re

learning the ugly truth of it all. They don’t know how to work for

people.

T. Shypitka: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to my colleague from north

Kamloops…. “Be it resolved that this House agrees that increased non

revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher gasoline prices make life more

expensive for British Columbians.” I think that’s a pretty obvious

statement.

I listened to some of the members on the other side. One says it’s

because we don’t have enough refineries. One says it’s not because we

don’t have pipelines. I’m not sure how you get oil to refineries without

pipelines. But then again another member says it’s because we want to

reduce demand. Well, guess what. Mission accomplished. You’re reducing

demand in the province because the underlying reason, one of the big

reasons that government can address, is fiscal policy, and that’s

taxation. That’s something we do have control over.

We don’t have control over refineries. I would like to see a

refinery get put in British Columbia. I really would. But we don’t have

that control. What we do have control over is our fiscal policy. That’s

this government’s responsibility. They’re walking away from that

responsibility here with this motion.

I live in the Kootenays. It’s a great area. We have lots of

recreation 365 days of the year. Our outdoor living and our access to

recreation is amazing. What’s amazing, actually, even more, is why more

people don’t live there. One of the reasons, I think, is probably

because of some of the offsets. We have remote locations. We have great

distances to go to some of the amenities that a lot of people in the

Lower Mainland have access to readily. Health care is one of those

issues. Education. Sometimes it’s a full-day drive to get to a hospital

where I live. So that affects our livability as gas prices…. I’ll get to

that in a second.

Revenue neutrality is what we’re talking about here. It was

essentially a new concept. It was brought in, in 2008 by the B.C.

Liberal government. This was an approach to climate change, and it was

celebrated as a fair and honest way to implement the

strategy.

As a matter of fact, the New York Times , The

Economist , the L.A. Times all gave it high praise. As

a matter of fact, the United Nations, in 2016, gave it high accolades of

being very cutting edge and a good way to deal with carbon tax. The

former World Bank president praised this way of doing business as “one

of the most powerful examples of carbon pricing.” So this was not just

something the B.C. Liberals celebrated. This was something that was

celebrated across the world as being very cutting edge.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Revenue neutrality, as we know, takes every dollar collected by

carbon output and gives it back to every taxpayer in the province by

reducing corporate and personal income tax. This affects the whole

province in addressing affordability. Under this model, B.C. had the

lowest personal income tax in the country for those that earned under

$125,000 a year. We’re starting to see that slide now.

[11:55 a.m.]

For this self-serving reason, we’re seeing this tax now being….

Revenue neutrality is gone. We’re seeing it going into general revenue.

For this self-serving reason, this tax is now not being distributed to

everyone in the province. Now this tax is going to government to spend

how it sees fit. If we’ve seen it once, we’ve seen it a thousand times

with this government. The NDP know how to spend your cash better than

you do. This is just another glaring example of that.

This tax goes into general revenue to be spent on pet projects

that will give the most political gain. If it wasn’t enough that this

government, with the help of the Greens, put in a tax that forced

British Columbians to pay for political campaigns, now they steal a

revenue-neutral tax and refocus it back into places where they can get

more votes — purely sinister.

We are not talking about chump change here. This tax will bring in

about $7.35 billion in the next four years. Most of this money would

have been better served going to the people of B.C., rather than to line

the pockets of special unions and special interest groups. Perhaps the

biggest hypocrisy of them all is that only about 15 percent of this tax

will be going to the CleanBC program, which has a mandate to reduce

carbon emissions, which is kind of ironic because I thought that was the

whole idea of the carbon tax in the first place.

Unfortunately, this meagre 15 percent going back to CleanBC to

reduce carbon emissions…. We don’t know where the other 85 percent is

going. Unless, of course, the NDP bring back transparency to the carbon

tax, British Columbians have no reason to trust that this government is

spending their money wisely. The NDP have killed the carbon tax

transparency report telling us what they’re spending the carbon tax on.

Isn’t this the whole idea of the carbon tax in the first

place?

The next piece of all of this is: why is this tax going up in the

first place? The first

part is they’re taking away revenue neutrality.

Now, we’re wondering why we have to go up. It’s going up another 40

tonnes here in the next couple of years.

I guess I’m running out of time here, hon. Speaker. Chevy Chase

would not have been able to take his family to Walley World if this

removal of revenue neutrality was in place during the

vacation.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kootenay East, may I call on you to adjourn

debate?

T. Shypitka moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada