H0522am 02

H0522am 02

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 22, 2008 Morning Sitting Volume 34, Number 2 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC FOURTH SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon.

Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations............... Hon. John van Dongen Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L)........................................................................ Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas............................................................................... John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Thursday, May 22, 2008 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 12705 Carbon Tax Act (Bill 37) Hon. C. Taylor S. Simpson B. Ralston M. Karagianis G.

Robertson Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 12720 Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities C. Trevena S. Fraser Hon. B. Penner R. Chouhan C. Wyse

12705 THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 The House met at 10:02 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Orders of the Day Hon. C. Richmond: In this chamber I call second reading of Bill 37, the Carbon Tax Act, with the hon. Minister of Finance; in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continued Committee of Supply estimates debate of the Ministry of Environment. Second Reading of Bills CARBON TAX ACT Hon. C. Taylor: I move that Bill 37, the Carbon Tax Act, be read a second time. Bill 37, the Carbon Tax Act, follows through on the government's commitment in Budget 2008 to introduce a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Bill 37 introduces a comprehensive, revenue-neutral carbon tax that will encourage all British Columbian families and businesses to lower their carbon footprint and will help meet our goal of reducing emissions by 33 percent by 2020.

There is considerable evidence that the climate is changing, that it is largely being caused by human activities and that its effects will worsen if no action is taken. Most of the world's top scientific experts in the subject agree with these co nclusions, drawn from the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [S. Hammell in the chair.] There is also an overwh elming scientific consensus that the main cause of climat e change is the creation of greenhouse gases due to the use of fossil fuels by humans.

In B.C., 65.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions were released in 2005. Under a business-as- usual scenario, emissions are anticipated to continue to rise as they have in the past. However, this government is committed to reducing 2020 emissions to 33 percent below the 2007 level.

Madam Speaker, we consulted extensively prior to introducing the carbon tax and found that in B.C. a rare consensus has formed among individuals, certain business groups, environmental orga nizations and economists that a carbon tax is a key tool in the move to reduce emissions, provided that the additional revenue is recycled to taxpayers through reductions to other taxes. [1005] Bill 37 imposes a broadly based revenue-neutral tax on the purchase and use of fossi l fuels in British Columbia beginning July 1, 2008.

The tax rate is calculated on the CO 2-equivalent emissions gene rated from the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, home heating fuel, propane and coal. Since different fossil fuels generate different amounts of CO 2-equivalent emissions when burned, the carbon tax has been trans- lated into tax rates for each specific type of fuel. As announced in the budget , the carbon tax is based on five principles. First, the tax will be revenue-neutral. All revenue from the tax will be returned to taxpayers through tax cuts.

For 2008 and 2009 the tax cuts take the form of reductions in personal and corporate income tax rates as provided in Bill 2. Bill 37 requires the Minister of Finance to table a three-year carbon tax plan with the main estimates every year. This plan must show how carbon tax revenues will be returned to taxpayers over the following three fiscal years. The minister must also show how any excess revenues from previous years will be returned. This ensures that there will be full, transparent, ongoing revenue recycling.

A financial penalty will be imposed on the Minister of Finance if the legislation necessary to return the carbon tax revenue to taxpayers for the first fiscal year of the plan is not introduced within 120 days from the date the plan was tabled. The second principle is that the tax rate will start low, based on the equivalent of $10 per metric tonne of CO 2-equivalent emissions, and will rise gradually to $30 per tonne by 2012. For certainty, the rates for the first five years are included in the legislation.

This phased-in approach will give taxpayers time to make adjustments to reduce their emissions and, consequently, their potential tax burden. It also provides the certainty required for a price signal to be effective. It will encourage the development and adoption of new and more efficient technologies and will not penalize tax- payers for decisions made prior to the announcement of the tax. The third principle is th at low-income individuals and families are protected.

The ongoing, refundable, low-income climate action tax credit will ensure that those with lower incomes are, on average, compensated for the tax they pay and that most will be better off. This is a continuing commitment. The amount of the credit is laid out in Budget 2008 for the first two years, and the government will review the credit annually to make sure that it does reflect the impact of the carbon tax on lower-income groups. Fourth, the carbon tax has the broadest base possible, given current technological, measurement and data limitations.

Virtually all emissions from fossil fuel combustion in B.C. captured in Environment Canada's national inventory report will be captured by this tax. The final principle is that the tax will be fully inte- grated with other greenhouse gas reduction measures. To avoid unfairness and double taxation, provisions in Bill 37 include general and specific regulatory powers to provide relief from the carbon tax for taxpayers who may be subject to other greenhouse gas reduction measures, including the cap-and-trade system. Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is intended to tax carbon-emitting fuels used in British Columbia. This

12706 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 carbon tax relies on the protocols developed by the IPCC to distinguish between domestic or made-in-B.C. and international emissions. Based on these interna- tionally accepted protocols, the B.C. carbon tax will not apply to exports or international aviation or marine use. The carbon tax will be a consumption tax, like the motor fuel tax, and will be payable at the time of retail purchase or use of fossil fuels in B.C.

There were extensive industry consultations after Budget 2008 to ensure that the compliance burden on those who will collect the ta x is minimized. With the exception of natural gas and propane, tax collection and remittance procedures for the carbon tax will be based on the motor fuel tax.

The collection of the tax on propane and natural gas will be administered like the social service tax, because this is the approach the sellers are most familiar with. [1010] The legislation has similar provisions to the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Social Service Tax Act with respect to refunds, audit and inspections, assessments, penalties and appeals. The carbon tax has been designed to achieve a very important objective, and in order for it to be truly effec- tive, the tax has to be applied consistently.

Each of us has the opportunity to reduce the impact of the tax by making climate-smart choices in our daily lives. By putting a price on carbon and then returning every dollar raised by the carbon tax to individuals and businesses in B.C. through tax cuts, our approach is a win for the environment and a win for the economy. We all contribute to climate change, and we will only make progress if all British Columbians participate. S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join in this debate, as it will be around Bill 37, and I would note for your information, hon.

Speaker, that I am the designated speaker on this bill. One of the early comments of the minister certainly is something that I agree with, which is the whole question around the importance of this issue of climate change. This is an issue that has not just captured global interest and attention but really, I think, has begun to bring people around the world and engage them in a discussion about climate change — what the impact on our planet will be, what the impact on biodi- versity is, what the impact will be on future generations of Canadians and of people around the world.

We know that this is argu ably the issue of our time. W e k n o w t h a t t h i s i s a n i s s u e t h a t w e a l l n e e d t o b e engaged in and that we all need to make efforts to re- solve. We also know that the importance of action is pretty essential around this . What we know about the reality of that is that there is a body of eight or ten or 12 initiatives that people talk about, including emissions pricing. That envelope of actions makes sense, but what we also know about them is that this is a work in progress. We don't really know a lot about how these programs will work when they're engaged.

We have a responsibility to develop and evolve approaches that allow us to, in fact, find solutions that work for everybody and, in British Columbia, solutions that work for all British Columbians. I guess the first note point that I'd like to make around this particular piece of legislation…. It is im- portant legislation. It's certainly important legislation for this government. The government introduced a budget that they called the green budget. In that budget, there were a limited number of initiatives, but there was the tax — the tax that's reflected by Bill 37. This really was the keystone of the budget.

It arguably is the keystone piece of legislation for this government in this session. What we know is that the extent of debate on this legislation, arguably the most important piece of legislation that this government will bring in this session, will end in less than an hour and 45 minutes. Before noon this debate will be adjourned, and that will be, in all likelihood, the end of discussion of Bill 37 and of this carbon tax.

On the most important piece of legislation that we are going to see, based on the government's own pronouncements around this, there will be less than two hours of discussion in this Legislature about this bill. Hon. Speaker, the government will tell you that time is running out and that they don't have the opportunity to bring it for longer, and they will make suggestions around the role of the opposition and whether we would hold the bill up. [1015] Well, this session, with th e addition of this week, becomes 13 weeks long.

We have had a 13-week session by the time we close this out at the end of next week — 13 weeks to have brought what is arguably the most important piece of legislation for the government in this session. And when do th ey bring it? They bring it with half a dozen days left in the session. They bring it at the very end. They bring it at a time that does not allow for full and free debate. They bring it at a time when everything is getting jammed up at the end, and they introduce it, arguably, at ten o'clock in the morning.

To the best of our knowledge and of what we believe, when the debate adjourns for lunch at 12 o'cloc k, it will not come back. There will not be another opportunity to discuss this bill. The bill has significant flaws in it — significant flaws that need work, significant flaws that may have been able to be addressed with amendment — but we'll never get to that discussion of amendment, because the debate will end after a handful of speakers at best. This is a problem that we have seen time and time again during this session. It is endemic of this govern- ment's penchant for and commitment to secrecy.

It is endemic to this Premier's and this government's sense of entitlement in this province. What it has resulted in on this issue — that we, on this side of the House, understand is arguably the most compelling issue that we will have to deal with over the next 20 or 30 or 40 years — is a tax and, increasingly, an overall package of initiatives that aren't working and that will not accomplish the objective that this government says it desires to achieve.

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12707 What we know is that this debate around Bill 37…. Let me be clear about this. This is not a debate about the value or the principle of emissions pricing. It is not a debate about the value or principle of cap-and-trade. It is not a debate about the value of a carbon tax or about the potential role of a carbon tax as a tool, among m any others, to bring down em ission s. I t is not abou t whether these are good idea s. This is about this particular piece of legislation. This is about this particular bill.

This is about whether this bill accomplishes the objectives it needs to accomplish. It's much like a piece of legislation that we've been dealing with earlier — Bill 18, the cap-and-trade legislation. We, on this side of the House, are supportive of a cap-and-trade model. We, on this side of the House, believe that cap-and-trade is an effective tool. The problem that we have with the legislation in Bill 18 is that it is enabling legislation. It tells us very little, if anything, about what the government's intentions are around cap-and-trade.

It has pages and pages of regulatory authority for cabinet that authorize cabinet to be able to, essentially, write every rule, set every standard, set every benchmark and to make decisions about auction or allocation, about thresholds and about scope — without bringing any of that discussion back here, or without having that discussion with British Columbians anywhere in this province. That's not acceptable to this side of the House. It's not an acceptable model, and it's not one that we can support.

When you look at what happens around that, you only have to really look at the kinds of comments around that secrecy that I've talked about, particularly in regard to the issue of the cap-and-trade bill. It refer- ences well to this carbon tax bill, to Bill 37. [1020] I'd like to read a quote from a letter that was sent from the David Suzuki Founda tion to the Minister of Environment, in regard to Bill 18. I believe it is applicable to most of the activity of the government.

"The breadth of confidentiality provisions in this legislation under- mines the crucial objective of keeping government processes open and accountable to the public. Within the context of effective climate change policy, provisions limiting transparency are profoundly damaging to the public trust regarding the government's commitment to have large emitters implement their fair share of emission reductions." That's what the foundation said in response to that piece of legislation.

What we know is that that piece of legislation leaves so much sitting behind closed doors at the cabinet table that I believe the public just simply doesn't have comfort with that level of unfettered control. The principal value of a ca rbon tax, of Bill 37, which is the other piece of the emission-pricing strategy…. Emission-pricing strategies tend to come in the two pieces. There's a cap-and-trade option, there's the carbon tax option, and there's a combination of the two. The second piece of that really is the carbon tax itself.

We need to be clear, and I want to restate again that this is not a question of being opposed to the principle of carbon taxes. It's not a question of being opposed to the principles and the import ance of emissions pricing, but there are serious question s about this fuel tax and about whether it is fair and whether it is effective. Those are two questions that need to be answered. Until we can answer the questions about fairness and effectiveness, we really have to ask ourselves whether this tax is accomplishing its objective.

When you look at the government's actions over the past seven years, not over the past year…. The government likes to talk about the last year, since the revelation of the Premier on climate change. But when we go back and begin to look at the conduct of this government over the last seven years on issues related to climate change, on the positions that the government took in its first term and continued into its second term until about a year ago, what we see, of course, is that the government has done a couple of things. First of all, we know that the Premier initially rejected the notion of Kyoto….

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me. J. Rustad: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure today…. Not often do I have school visits come down from my riding. It's a very long journey to make. Today I have a group of 18 students and adults from the Northside Christian School in Vanderhoof. They're here to tour the facility and to see the proceedings that are going on. I had a chance to meet with them earlier. They're a great group of kids, and I ask that the House please make them welcome. Debate Continued S.

Simpson: As I was saying, part of what we have to look at…. When we look at where the government is today on this particular piece of legislation, we need to look back at the record of the government and determine whether, as British Columbians, we can have confidence in this government to achieve its objective. We know that this is a government that rejected Kyoto, essentially — rejected what was then the federal government of the day's initiatives to be part of the Kyoto protocol. We have a Premier who dismissed the role that British Columbia could play around climate change for most of the first term.

We have a government that has looked to expand — with significant, record subsidies — the oil and gas sector, the production of fossil fuels. We have a govern- ment that has continued to promote and look for ways to make offshore oil and gas happen. We have a government that has contin ued to promote a range of issues around the advancement of roads and bridges over transit.

12708 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 We have a government that has created a total disconnect between this file related to climate change, which gets driven out of th e Premier's office, and what seems to be much of the program and policy of the government in many other areas. That's not necessarily all that the government has done. [1025] In contrast, the previous government, the NDP government that preceded the B.C.

Liberals before 2001, took a look and developed a series of environmental initiatives and climate change initiatives that, if the government had not torn them up, would have put us in an ideal place today. What did the government do? What we know the previous government did is pioneer integrated land use planning that looked at how it balanced environmental, economic and social priorities i n w a y s t h a t h a d n e v e r b e e n d o n e b e f o r e . I t i n c l u d e d strengthening protection of the agricultural land reserve, strengthening regional planning powers and encouraging the reduction of sprawl.

The NDP government developed B.C.'s first green- house gas action plan and climate change plan. It pioneered the Green Economy Secretariat, which was developed to look at the crea tion of green jobs and to stimulate a green economy. It established the strictest automobile emissions controls in Canada, and it expanded transit. It established innovative green building initiatives, AirCare and Po wer Smart programs. It met the UN goal of protecting 12 percent of our land base through the Muskwa-Kechika, Kitlope, Khutzeymateen and many other protected areas and parks. Hon.

Speaker, it was the first government to take steps forward on tax-shifting, and it established the position of a sustainability commissioner through the Auditor General's office that would have reported to this Legislature, had it been put in place after 2001. The challenge here, and what we need to understand, is that nearly all of these initiatives, without exception, were wiped out by this Premier and this government within 30 days of coming into office. They took all of those initiatives.

Now, I understand that the idea of sustainability and the idea of responsible planning is a foreign matter to the Minister of Transportation. That's okay. He doesn't understand sustainability. Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Member. S. Simpson: So what we have is a government that dismantled most of the sustainability initiatives that were in place, a Premier who dismissed issues related to climate change at the time he was elected and continued to dismiss them until about a year ago, when he discovered his new religion on this. It's the secrecy.

It is this record of a lack of leadership by this government over seven years and this inordinate secrecy that we see today that makes British Columbians nervous and concerned about whether this government can be trusted, on this file, to move things forward. As I noted previously, there are significant current contradictions. There are the contradictions around the significant record-breaking subsidies for oil and gas at a time when we're reducing fossil fuels. There are contradictions around what's suggested with this tax itself, as to what's required in order to make this tax work.

I would note that in this tax itself the projections are…. Interestingly, in an editorial piece in The Vancouver Sun related to this, Harvey Enchin said, on May 2, "…the revenue forecast" for the fuel tax "requires that the number of cars on B.C. roads increases at double the rate of population growth and that demand for gasoline and diesel fuel rises faster than any time in the past 20 years," in order to make the estimates work. [1030] What we also know is that the projections in the budget are for 2 percent incr eases in fuel consumption every year over the next four years.

We know that ICBC has projected out an 11 percent increase in vehicles that they will insure over th e next three years in this province. So clearly, there' s no expectation from this government that over the life of this we're going to begin to see a reduction in v e h i c l e s o n t h e r o a d . I would think that a reduction in vehicles on the road would be an objective if this tax was to become effective. But those contradictions are the reality of this government and the way that it deals with matters. So what about the tax? Is the tax fair, and is it effective?

Those are the questions that we need answers to. We have said that we don't believe the tax is fair, and we have said that we don't believe the tax will be effective. This tax applies to people without alternatives. It applies to people who face heating costs that are greater in regions. It makes no acknowledgment of those regional differences, and this is a place where we disagree and

part company with the government on this tax. We represent and recog- nize the need for regional fairness and regional differ- ences. It is a tax that potentially compromises key industries and threatens jobs. It's a tax that we don't see the balance in, in terms of balancing it with other sustainability measures around economic and social matters. It's a tax that downloads to community services, whether they be school boards, hospitals or local governments. We have heard from all of those communities, as have the members on that side.

The Minister of State for Mining is being a little testy today, because I'm sure he's heard from many of his constituen ts their concern about the tax that he's embracing. We have a tax that applies to public services, with no recognition by this government that those services are cash-strapped to start with because of the levels of support that they've got from this government. They're services that will cause increased additional costs for people in British Columbia.

For example, the city of Port Coquitlam estimates the fuel tax will add over $800,000 to their five-year economic plan, resulting in about 1¾ percent tax increases

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12709 at the local level in order for them to meet the challenge of this tax. The government is not discussing that matter with them. The government has not engaged in that. As a result of that, we have a growing list of communities and key organizations that are raising concerns, whether it be Port Coquitlam, Prince George, Quesnel, Fort St. John, Ki timat, the North Central Municipal Association, other municipal associations or the B.C. School Trustees Association.

We now have mayors in communities around this province encouraging their councils and councils looking at adopting resolutions that say they will hold back the tax in order to protect the interests of their members. The other thing we know about these communities is that not one of these communities, not one of these mayors, has said they don't want to be a participant in helping to resolve climate change. Not one of these mayors has said that they don't believe there are costs that will need to be paid by people in their communities. But what they do say is: "We have not been con- sulted.

We have not been talked to. We have not been engaged in a discussion about the important issues in our community and had the opportunity to make our case to the Finance Minister, to the Premier, to the climate secretariat — and not just to make our case but to make our case and to be heard." Well, that secrecy and that lack of fairness create a huge, huge problem. [1035] The other unfair aspect of this is that it does….

While the Minister of Finance says it captures all emissions, the reality is that we know there are 30-plus percent of emissions that won't be captured — some of them from the big polluters — for a number of reasons. There is no sense of how those get captured in the short term. The government will tell us that they may get captured by cap-and-trade down the road, but we don't know what cap-and-trade is going to look like. That discussion i s o n g o i n g . W e h a v e n o i d e a w h a t i t ' s g o i n g t o l o o k like, and we're not confident about when it will actually come into play.

The other issue around fairness…. The Minister of Finance talked about the low-income tax credit. We know that for the first year or so, the low-income tax credit works pretty well. It works well to offset the costs of the tax, but that becomes much less sure in future years. We don't see a guarantee in here that people will actually be protected for their costs — low-income folks. That guarantee is not there in years 3 and 4 and 5.

W h a t w e k n o w i s t h a t i f w e s e e i n c r e a s e s , a s h a s been discussed, in the tax credit linked to the rate of inflation, yet we see the tax going up at a significantly faster rate than the rate of inflation, then people will fall behind. It will be the people who are most vulnerable and who are least able to deal with additional costs who will fall behind. We know, as well, that those costs for those folks will be reflected in ferries, will be reflected in food costs, will be reflected in a range of costs.

There is no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t i s g o i n g t o b e o f f s e t , b e c a u s e there is no indication as to how those costs get offset for people in those situations. So we have a situation where we have a tax that isn't fair, a tax that doesn't recognize regional issues, a tax that was developed without consultation. When all of those matters are taken into account and you say, "Okay, that's all occurred," then you have to ask yourself: if it's not fair, is it at least effective? Is it at least effective? Is it at least going to accomplish the objective?

This is a place where we will have some debate, as well, around this question of effectiveness. What the Minister of Finance told us in her opening comments is that it puts a price on emissions, and she's correct. This puts a price on emissions. What she didn't tell us is that the expectations and the projections are that it will have a minimal impact on the reduction in emissions through 2020.

Right now, based on the budget documents and on the numbers in the budget, what we know is that the government is expecting about 2 percent of emissions to be reduced by the tax by 2020 — 2 percent of our emissions, something in that range. That's maybe about three million tonnes or so, a relatively small number. The question then is: is the tax going to be effective as structured? Does the tax work best at this front end? Would the tax have been better placed at source and in ways that in some cases…?

In some of the Scandinavian countries they appear to have had some greater success by placing it elsewhere and structuring the tax quite differently. We wouldn't know that, because that discussion was never had. There was no public discussion. The government hasn't released economic modelling to show how this tax succeeds. None of that information has been provided to this House. None of that information has been provided to British Columbians. It's simply a trust-me. It's a trust-me with very large tax breaks to corporate British Columbia and to others.

You almost have to wonder whether those tax breaks are a bigger part of the deal. We assumed that should the debate have actually gone through second reading, if we weren't an hour and a bit away from the debate closing on this matter after less than two hours on the government's signature legislation…. You have the government's signature legislation, and they're prepared to close it in two hours. [1040] Well, there are amendments that could have been moved to this legislation around regional fairness. There are amendments that could have been moved to ensure the protection of low-income people.

There are amendments that could have been moved about reviews of the legislation and its effectiveness. There are a variety of things that could have been done, which may have improved this bill. In fact, we may have moved a referral if we had had a full and free debate on this. Maybe we would have moved a referral that would have asked this Legislature to do what the Premier hasn't been prepared to do. The Leader of the Official Opposition and I recently wrote to the Premier.

We wrote to the Premier on April 25 and asked the Premier at that time to establish an all-party committee of the Legislature to give the issue

12710 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 of the carbon tax, the issue of cap-and-trade, the recommendations of the WCI, which we're now seeing — they're being discussed in meetings yesterday and today in Salt Lake City — and to give the work of the Climate Action Team arou nd 2012 and 2016 short-term targets and their recommendations, which will become available in July…. Give that material to an all-party committee, along with access to the climate change secretariat and their data.

Ask that committee to spend its summer out on the road talking to British Columbians, talking to experts, talking to others around the world who know about this and can provide information and to come back for the fall session to dedicate a significant part of the fall session to the question of climate change — put these issues on the table and see whether we could in fact come up with a program that involves British Columbians. I know that for many in the cabinet, the idea of involving citizens in matters that affect them and that they pay for is a foreign matter. It's a foreign matter. Interjection. S.

Simpson: I'm sure the Minister of Transportation could get up and join the debate afterwards, if he'd like. He'll get his chance. What we know is that we asked the Premier to set up that committee to take th is issue, which is arguably an issue more than any other that British Columbians should be engaged in. But the Premier rejected that. The Premier said that he doesn't want legislators talking to British Columbians about climate change. He doesn't want legislators talking in an open and trans- parent way.

He doesn't want legislators out spending that time doing their job on th is critical issue, bringing back information for this Legislature to consider in the fall, in our fall sitting, and hopefully being able to move forward with a program that was bipartisan in nature. But that's not what we have. Instead, we have this tax. You know, when we look at this tax and look at who is concerned about it, it's interesting to note that we in the official opposition are certainly concerned. But it's interesting — the comments of the leader of the B.C. Green Party. What did the leader of the B.C.

Green Party say in her comments? She said: "In terms of policy, however, I don't believe this is a well-designed carbon tax, and I don't like the way that the tax-shifting has been done. It seems to me that the purpose of this kind of financial instrument is to get the end result that you want, which in this case is a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. There is nothing in this tax that will achieve that result. I think the Liberals missed an opportunity to design an effective carbon tax and to use it to get results.

I believe the Liberals were compromised by their ideology and by their financial connection to big business. So these are some of the problems I see with the tax as it's designed." She certainly makes a point about that. What we know, of course, is that there is a case to be made for that connection. We know that companies in British Columbia that own facilities that emitted 100,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gases in 2006 donated over $1.6 million to the provincial Liberals between 2005 and 2007.

So the big polluters are the big donors. [1045] There's a direct correlation between those who pollute and those who give money to the B.C. Liberal Party. I suspect there's a direct correlation there as to why we see with this tax and why we see with most of the initiatives of this government the talk about individual responsibility and about load ing this onto consumers, with very little of it back at source, to date, around the big polluters. It will be important for us to see where the government goes with that over the next period of time.

What we know about the whole question of meeting the challenge of climate chan ge is that while emissions pricing certainly is important, there is no assurance here that it reduces emissions. What it does is says, "Let the market deal," but it does not say much about reducing emissions. What we know, if we're serious about this, is that we need a combination of programs.

We need a combination of programs that provide for a strong regulatory regime and that provide incentives for people to be able to make changes in behaviour and that move through and look at ways that we engage British Columbians in finding solutions. I want to take a couple of minutes and talk about some of the aspects of a framework, with some examples about what we think needs to be done if we're going to be successful. The first thing we believe is that whether it be the B.C. Liberals, the NDP or anybody else, we have no monopoly on good ideas. There is no monopoly on good ideas.

We know that there are many good ideas out there in British Columbia and elsewhere. We know there are people out there who want to be part of this discussion. We know they want to be engaged in the solution. We know they want solutions that they can take ownership of. We know they are prepared and willing to do that, and we know they're prepared to pay the price to make British Columbians' contribution in the fight against greenhouse gases. So we need to start from the position that says we are going to talk to British Columbians.

Leadership is about saying: "Here are the objectives that we need to accomplish in terms of reduction of emissions. Here are the objectives we need to accomplish, and we all have a role and responsibility to play in getting there." And it's to then say: "Now let's talk about how we get there, and let's develop solutions that will work." It's not about edicts from on high. It's not about an autocratic approach to this.

It's about being firm with your objectives and then being confident enough in your ability to sit down with people and actually engage in a discussion that you hope brings consensus and engages people in a way that allows solutions to be achieved. That was the reason for the letter to the Premier. Clearly, it was not successful. What we're looking at here is a plan. We're looking for a framework that needs to be fair. It needs to have

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12711 equity for all regions and for all citizens. It needs to be effective in terms of its actual climate change pollution reductions. It needs to be open and accountable in its planning and implementation, and it needs to encompass within it the kind of environmental stewardship and resiliency that our communities need to meet the chal- lenges of climate change. We're arguing, on this side, for seven core components to that kind of plan. We're arguing that there are seven aspects of that, which we need to engage this discussion with British Columbians.

The first of those is tougher regulations for polluters. We need to have tough and compulsory regulations, which are essential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What we know is that voluntary measures don't work. They certainly haven't worked to date, and there's no reason to believe they would work effectively in the future. [1050] You need, when you're going to put a regulatory regime in place, to increase the monitoring and enforce- ment to ensure that you are in fact accomplishing the objectives you've laid out.

Just an idea of some of the kinds of things that we should be doing now and things that we could do very quickly. We need to toughen oil and gas regulations by banning fugitive emissions and all flaring. We know there's some work to be done to get there in terms of fugitive emissions and flaring, but we should be looking at charging royalties on that flaring and those emissions until such time as the company finds the way to reduce and eliminate that flaring an d emissions. I'm sure it would be a great incentive for them if they had to pay royalties on that to be able to do that and reduce those.

We need to invest, and we need to encourage the industries to invest in carbon capture and storage around coal and other producers of carbon dioxide. Coal is an important industry in British Columbia. It's going to be an important industry for a long time to come. We need to develop the carbon capture-and-storage strategies not just for British Columbia but so that we can have technology that we hopefully have some capacity and ability to sell, as well as selling our product. We need to look at the green building code that gets talked about. We need to implement a comprehensive green building code.

Buildings are a significant portion of our emissions. Municipal governments play a significant role in emissions; 60 percent to 70 percent of emissions are linked to local government s in some way, shape or form. The building code is an integral part of the work that they do. We need to have the building code in place that begins to get us where we want to go on this issue, and we need to reduce waste going into and emissions coming from landfills. Those are just some examples of some of the regulatory efforts that we need to be making in British Columbia. We do need fair and effect ive emissions pricing.

We need emissions pricing that not only helps us to change behaviour and encourage alternatives that reduce emissions but is fair, effective and looks at cracking down on those who create the emissions. A cap-and-trade system is a big piece of that. It's a piece that we think needs to be done in a thoughtful way. It's a piece that we're looking very closely at — what the western climate initiative is saying. We're looking at their recommendations that are on the table right now in Salt Lake City, which will be refined, and we'll be looking forward to looking at those more.

But we know some of the components of that cap-and-trade system that absolutely need to be in place. We need to set aggressive real caps — not for some unspecified time in the future, but real caps. We should be talking ab out what those caps look like now. Even if the plan, the program and the cap-and- trade model aren't in place today, we should be looking at and talking about what those caps are, if for no other reason than to telegraph to industry the kinds of numbers we're looking at and the kinds of approaches we're taking.

We need to target all significant polluters including oil and gas, large industry , commercial transportation, aviation and shipping as it functions within our area. We see that the WCI is talking about 10,000 to 25,000 tonnes as the threshold. That seems like a pretty good number. That's a number that we need to be looking at — not 100,000 tonnes, but a si gnificantly lower number that will capture all of the players. We also need to captur e transportation. That's a very large piece of this issu e for us, and we'll need to see what the recommendations are.

But British Columbia needs to be saying yes to capturing transportation. We also need to auction these permits. Allocation is not a system that is recognized by many as effective. We need to look at an auct ion system that auctions a majority or all of the permits. We certainly need to have a discussion about what those levels are and whether you cap the auction amounts in the early days, in the early cycle of a cap-and-trade system. But we absolutely need to look at an auction system. [1055] As Bill 18, the cap-and-trade bill, talks about offsets in a significant way, offsets are an important tool.

They're an important transition tool to assist industries as they transition. They're an important tool for some industries that are going to have a particularly chal- lenging time, like aviation, to be able to reduce their emissions because of fuel demands that they have not found alternatives for yet. There's no doubt about that. They should be seen as a short-term measure. They should be seen as a transi tion measure. They should not be seen as a way for large polluters to buy their way out of reducing emissions. Ultimately, the objective has to be the reduction of emissions.

The objective has to be getting to the point where we don't require emissions pricing because we have in fact reduced our emissions. But we're a long way from there. The current tax — Bill 37, this tax — does not tell us in any significant way how emissions get reduced. So what about a fair carbon tax? Well, a fair carbon tax does need, in a place like British Columbia, to recognize regional differences and recognize questions around access to public transportation, if transportation is the key issue.

12712 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 A fair carbon tax does need to look at industry and job impacts and develop transition plans so that B.C. workers, businesses and communities benefit from new innovations in this clean energy economy. It does need to link more closely to what that green economy looks like. It does need to have some thought put into how we manage jobs and business, how we move to the green economy that everybody talks about.

But there is no discussion going on — certainly no discussion in this Legislature — no platform or forum for that discussion about how we begin to in fact get that clean energy economy that everybody is looking for and that will be essential if we're going to succeed in reducing our emissions. It needs to take some practical steps at the outset. For example, this tax, we would argue, should exempt coloured gas for agricultural production. It's not an alternative that many of our farmers have — to not be able to use that fuel. It's being taxed at a time when farmers are being challenged.

We say that's an exemption that would be fair. We would have moved that amendment, but we're not go ing to get there, because this debate will be two hours in its entirety for what is arguably the signature piece of legislation for this government in this session. We need to ensure that local and public services are not eroded by this tax. It's not about exempting them from the tax, but it's about ensuring that they are not hurt in a way that actually reduces services, whether it's in our schools, our local government or our health care system or, for that matter, our non-profit social services. [K.

Whittred in the chair.] We need to ensure from the outset that the credits to low- and middle-income households — but primarily low-income households — are there to ensure that they are not hurt by this, to ensure that revenue neutrality, as the minister talks about, actually is also about a neutrality of impact on people at the low-income levels. We need to help increase conservation and green energy production. Measures are needed to increase green energy and conservation. They include a number of items that I'd like to suggest we should be talking about here. They should be matters of debate here.

They should be a discussion for the legislative committee that we've called for. We need comprehensive home and small business retrofit programs that encourage the replacement of old furnaces and hot water sy stems, the installation of solar panels and other technologies that will conserve e n e r g y . I f w e w a n t p e o p l e t o c h a n g e t h e i r b e h a v i o u r , we need to give them the opportunities to do that in much better ways than are being suggested here. We need real assistance for local government and other public services to increase energy efficiency.

Local governments are being told that by 2012, they're to be carbon-neutral. But we see nothing — absolutely nothing — here, only a couple of years away, that suggests how this government is going to assist local governments in doing this. [1100] What we see instead are matters like this fuel tax, with no consultation with local governments and with an increasing fear on their part that the download after d o w n l o a d t h a t t h e y h a v e s e e n f r o m t h e B . C . L i b e r a l s are only going to accelerate.

More and more demands are put on local government as this government sheds its responsibility on these matters — more and more downloads. We need real assistance and real support for local government to be able to meet the challenge and, in all likelihood, provid e the real leadership in many ways on the question of greenhouse gas emissions. We need to mandate B.C. Hydro to develop a real green energy plan — one that serves the public interest rather than private profits and encourages local energy plans that involve local gove rnments and first nations.

We know that this government, through its private power strategy, has eroded and eroded B.C. Hydro's r o l e a n d c o n t i n u e s t o d o t h a t . I t i s o n l y t h r o u g h t h e public reaction that you have seen any halting or slowing of that process, as the go vernment gets concerned as thousands upon thousands of British Columbians around this province raise serious concerns about this government's privatization strategy for B.C. Hydro. Thousands and thousands of British Columbians come forward to say that B.C.

Hydro is an important part of our heritage, that it is a critical tool in a green energy strategy and that it sh ould be the leader in de- veloping that strategy. It shouldn't be pushed to the back burner. It shouldn't be eroded or compromised. We believe that too. We believe B.C. Hydro has a key role to play in the success of climate change initiatives in British Columbia, in the success of green energy initiatives. But we do not believe that that can be accomplished while their role continues to be eroded through the conduct of this government. Transportation. We need transportation solutions.

We know that almost 40 percent of emissions can be linked to transportation matters and can be connected in some way to transportation. We need to increase the investment in transit now, and we would argue that we should roll back the last fare increase. We know that in this last year, in this budget, we have seen a massive budget, in excess of $800 million, for roads and bridges, and a relatively miniscule budget around increased transit. The question becomes: what is the priority?

What is the priority when the budget for roads and bridges is more than ten times the size of the commitment that we see for transit? A t a t i m e w h e n w e h a v e a g o v e r n m e n t t h a t h a s talked about a transit plan, yet they have not put the dollars on the table…. When we look out over the next three years, we don't see the dollars on the table to make that plan a reality or to start to move it towards being a reality. We have to question the sincerity of that plan when there is no money attached to it. We have here a government that we have seen with rhetoric after rhetoric on these issues.

We need enhanced tools like tax increment financing for local governments to fund much-needed transportation projects. They have to have other ways to get at this funding. It can't be done with property taxes; it can't be

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12713 done with fare increases. There have to be other ways to get at that if we're serious, but we don't see those efforts being made on the part of this government to find innovative ideas. It's time for a real road-to-rail strategy in British Columbia for rural B.C. that invests in rail to move goods in and out of communities.

It's time for rail-to-bus linkages that provide transpor tation alternatives to put more people on trains and fewer trucks on the road and for a B.C. diesel strategy that would encourage heavy-duty truck fleets and passenger vehicles to move to biodiesel that is produced from waste materials. We want to be clear there. We believe there is a strategy to produce biodiesel based on the use of waste materials, and we would support that. We believe that that is the way to go, but that's not what's being talked about with the biofuels bill here.

That's not the discussion here at all. [1105] We need to look at local land use planning and resource management issues. Local governments and first nations will be key partners in the climate change fight, and they must be at the table from the outset. They must have the tools and resources needed to ensure that their communities have the ability to adapt to the real impacts of climate change and to support that fight. That means that at the start we should be repealing the Significant Projects Streamlining Act and other pieces of legislation, like the clauses in Bill 30.

Those are pieces that the Premier put in plac e that significantly reduce local government authority, planning and control, on planning matters primarily. We certainly know that local government does a significantly better job of planning than the B.C. Liberal government. We need to provide provincial incentives and regu- lations to promote compact communities as a positive alternative to sprawl.

We know that our local communities have to have increased capacity to build compact communities, to design neighbourhood centres, to protect the ALR, to be able to ensure that we are putting more people in communities that increase the capacity and the demand for transit, so that we can begin to provide bus systems in the communities that don't have them today. We've got the population le vels there that, in fact, will ensure a ridership that makes it economical. But you don't have that if you don't design the communities, and you don't get the communi ties without the transit.

That requires a degree of thoughtfulness and planning that hasn't necessarily been evident with the government across the way. We need to, as I said, provide better protection for our agricultural land thro ugh the ALR. We need to protect agricultural land from development at a time when we know that food security is a key issue. We need to ensure the integrity of the ALR, and we need to ensure the integrity of the ALR is protected in an open and transparent way. There are serious questions about whether that is or has been occurring in this province. We need to make sure first nations are at the table.

We now know…. We have seen the concern as the new relationship begins to un ravel for the government because of the lack of meaningful consultation on a range of issues. We are now increasingly seeing senior first nations leaders in the province raising serious concerns about the collapse of the new relationship and what that will mean. What we need to ensure on this issue around climate change is that we redouble our efforts to ensure the first nations have a meaningful and substantive place at the table to be able to help us deal with these issues of climate change.

We need to create a sustainable society and econ- omy. One of the things that becomes clearer, as I learn more and more about this issue, is that it isn't, of course, just a challenge but that there are great economic opportunities around climate change. We know that markets are being created and that people will get wealthy out of markets on things like cap-and-trade systems. We know that there's speculation now related to climate change initiatives.

We know that there are businesses popping up to deal with questions, to create offset opportunities — some of them very credible and legitimate, some of them less so. There are just a growing number of opportunities being created. We've seen the biofuels debate, which moved from an idea that most people said looked like a very good idea to one that's now raising serious concerns about the future of food security on the globe. But what they do, clearly, is create opportunities. So how do we deal with that? What should we be doing?

Well, we should be developing a green industrial policy — one with climate-friendly tax credits that looks at ways to encourage people into the new green economy, one that leverages federal dollars in green directions, expands fundin g for the development of clean energy technology. We need to provide transition support and strategies for industries and workers at risk, including long-term sustainability plans for forestry. Our forest sector is in serious trouble. We know that. We have had that discussion day in and day out over the last number of weeks in this place.

We are not seeing the plans that are necessary to begin to revitalize our forest sector. We need to do that. We need to develop that revitalization strategy, with climate change in mind, with adaptation strategies in mind and begin to move forward there. [1110] We need to reinvest in the public service, to ensure proper monitoring, research and enforcement. There are an awful lot of programs and initiatives that we've seen enunciated in legislatio n over this session, not the least of which is Bill 37, the carbon tax. Those programs will require staff. They'll require expertise.

They'll require people to be able to do inspections, to audit, to monitor, to do assessment, to do an alysis. Those are new tasks, new responsibilities over and above what government already has on its plate, and we need to ensure that the resources are there and priori tized there to make sure that we, in fact, can get at those issues. We need to implement a curriculum that teaches future adults how to adapt an d flourish as citizens for our climate. When we talk about changes in behaviour,

12714 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 I can't think of any tool that would be more effective than to begin the discussion of sustainability at a very early age in school and to continue that discussion throughout high school so that we have kids coming out of high school having a whole different view of what sustainability is, what their responsibilities are, what society's responsibilities are, what government's responsibilities are. That will begin the shift.

If we started that today, in a decade we would have a group of young adults, many of them hopefully leading to leadership positions, who would have a fundamentally different view of what sustainability was, a fundamentally different understanding and appreciation of it and, I believe, a much greater commitment to beginning to make the changes and sustai ning the changes that are necessary for us to shift this world in a way that needs to happen and for us in British Columbia to do our

part in a meaningful way. We need to talk about leadership and accountabil- ity. We know that bold action is needed, but we know that this action has to be grounded in leadership, and it must be undertaken in ways that are transparent and accountable to the people of B.C. We can't go it alone in this province. Whether it be this tax, whether it be cap- and-trade, whether it be vehicle emissions reductions, we don't have the capacity in British Columbia to do this on our own. We need to step up and be a leader in this country in more ways than simply press releases and rhetoric.

We need to be a leader in moving the federal government and moving our other provincial counterparts to a different place. That's the leadership that needs to be shown. It's unfortunate. I found it disappointing that at the time when the Premiers met in British Columbia…. Our Premier chaired one of those sessions that related to the issues of climate ch ange. We saw the Premier of Alberta essentially not find it important enough to stay for that session. We've seen the federal government be incredibly resistant to climat e initiatives.

What British Columbia has done is stay essentially silent instead of encouraging both Alberta and the federal government to step up and play a more important role and play a more substantive role. We haven't seen that from our Premier, and that's a role that leadership says he should play. Leadership is about, as I've said before, openness and transparency. We need to be open with British Colum- b i a n s . W e n e e d t o b e t r a n s p a r e n t . W e n e e d t o e n g a g e British Columbians in these issues. And leadership is about consistency.

It has to be about consistency, and there is a lack of consistency in the policy program of this government between its talk on climate change and, in fact, its actions in a whole range of other policy areas. Those are the kinds of pieces that we believe need to be encompassed in a framework discussion with British Columbians to find the solutions we need. We know that the solutions that are being proposed here, most of them, develop over a period of years.

I'm sure the Minister of Finance would be the first person to say that she has no expectations of this tax significantly changing people's behaviour in the short term. She might argue that in the second cycle, if there is a second cycle, it starts to work.

We know that many of the experts in this would tell you that the numbers have to get much greater before you have an impact. [1115] We also know that at this particular juncture, this particular time, when fuel prices are going through the roof, when there is no end in sight, when the projections are that by 2012 or so we'll be looking at $2.50 gas or something close to that….

You have to ask the question about whether this tax will be effective in accomplishing any of the objectives or having any impact on how people use and consume fuel that is not going to be had by these other realities of fuel increase costs. We need to meet the challenge of climate change. We need to do it now. We need to do it in a way that is open. We need to do it in a way that engages British Columbians in that discussion, whether they be in Quesnel, Campbell River, Surrey, Victoria, Nelson or Vancouver. It doesn't matter. They need to have an opportunity to be engaged. They don't have that opportunity.

This side of the House can't support the secrecy of this government's actions. On this side of the House we cannot support the disconnected nature of how this government grapples with this issue — arguably, looking more like it wants to greenwash itself through next May than deal with these serious questions. We cannot support the government that has put forward proposals that will clearly be ineffective for the foreseeable future.

We cannot support a government that will not make some connection between its policies, initiatives and aspirations in a whole range of areas — like oil and gas, like coalbed methane, like offshore oil and gas — and its policies around climate change. A s w e b e g i n t o l o o k a t t h i s , a s w e b e g i n t o t a l k about this, we have a bill that is not fair to all British Columbians and does not treat everybody the same. We have a bill that is not fair to low-income people. We have a bill that excludes a significant amount of emissions, where we don't see how they get picked up elsewhere at this time.

We have a bill that is not going to be effective in reducing our emissions by any substantive amount. So the question has to be: why this bill? There is no reason for this bill right now. What there is reason for is a substantive, bipartisan discussion of this issue of climate change. What there is r e a s o n f o r i s t o g o o u t and open that discussion, with a very short time frame, with all British Columbians. What there is, is a reason to bring people to the table to have the kind of summit discussion that's necessary to bring all of the good ideas and the thinkers to on e place to talk about this issue.

There is reason for a practical, fair and democratic plan of action. Bill 37 is not that plan. Bill 37 does not deserve the support of British Columbians. A majority of British Columbians know that and oppose this bill. They oppose it for good reasons. A number of British Columbians, a majority of British Columbians, are opposed to Bill 37 because they know it's not fair. They know they weren't consulted. They know it won't accomplish the objectives. They are right on this issue; the government is wrong.

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12715 We will stand with the British Columbians who have a more thoughtful approach to this. We will stand with British Columbians in saying no to Bill 37. We will do the work on this side to bring forward fair, effective and democratic climate change initiatives in British Columbia, and we will do that with or without the government. B.

Ralston: In beginning my remarks on this bill, I think it's useful to look at the legislative history of this session, briefly, and reflect upon what it means to the government's professed commitment to climate change initiatives and the pricing of carbon. The budget was tabled here on February 19, and a commitment was made to introduce this legislation. But very unusually, this legislation was substantially delayed in its introduction.

We have only come to a debate a t w h a t i s c a l l e d s e c o n d r eading, as we're doing now, which is debate in principle — and it's only part of the legislative process — today, on May 22. So over three months after the budget promising this bill, we are engaged in a brief discussion of it. [1120] Ordinarily, a bill would proceed from this stage, after discussion by as ma ny members as wanted to address this important issue, to what's ca ll ed c om m it- tee stage, where the opportunity is there to have the minister respond on a clause-by-clause basis and offer a defence or an explanation of the bill.

Given the way in which the government has bungled and mismanaged its legislativ e agenda this session, we are being permitted by the House Leader on the other side, because it's the government that has the discretion as to when to call the bill for debate or not…. We're being given two hours to debate this bill — two hours only. The bill is one of the bills that the House Leader has put forward before the House as those that will be subject to closure — that is, a guillotine which will limit debate. We're on a Thursday here. We're sitting tomorrow, and then there are four days next week.

So with six days to go, including today, the government finally initiates a discussion of this piece of legislation. There will not be sufficient time to debate it in the usual way that legislatures across th e country debate legislation and engage in the kind of constructive debate that people expect and desire in a democratic process. It says something about the government's commit- ment to this legislation and to the agenda that they claim they're advancing — t h a t i t ' s c o m i n g f o r w a r d i n t h i s way.

In my view, that's a sign ificant factor in assessing the government's sincerity about their commitment to this particular policy. The legislation that has been introduced, as my colleague has pointed out, has a number of flaws. The goal of the legislation — and the goal that those in the public and on this side of the House and in the view of the government…. Their professed objective is to introduce legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this piece of legislation, in the manner in which it seeks to achieve those objectives, is neither fair nor effective.

In other words, it does not have the kind of public support that it should have for such an important measure. That's very clear, and I'll deal with the views of numerous mayors and municipalities throughout the province who have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the manner in which this legislation has come forward. It's very clear that even on the government's own accounting, it will not be effective. It will have very little, if any, impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions out to the 2020 reduction in their own numbers of only 2 percent.

Part of the problem with the legislation results from the manner in which it was developed. Despite the stated objective of the Premier prior to 2001 of being the most open and accountable government in the history of the province — that was his objective — time and time again, we have seen that the govern- ment's inclination and the direction of the Premier is to develop policy in secret and then spring it on the public. Much of this important debate has taken place behind closed doors, contra ry to what's happening in other jurisdictions.

Certainly the western climate change initiative, where other Canadian provinces and states in the United States are engaged in this debate, shows a marked difference from the approach of British Colum- bia. Here the climate change secretariat, nominally in the Ministry of Environment but under the effective direction and control of the Premier's office, has developed much of its policy — if not all of it — in complete secrecy. There's a problem with secrecy.

It just doesn't lead to the kind of effective and open public debate that results in good ideas and also the kind of broad public acceptance that one wishes for in a democracy. [1125] In other words, to have good policy, it's important to bring people in and to no t hide behind closed doors, have that discussion, air differences and develop the kind of policy that's required. This piece of legislation has the hallmarks, has the st icky fingers of the Premier all over it, and it suffers because of it.

That's the reason why ther e has been such a reaction against this legislation from very, very diverse parts of the province. Whether it's ec onomic sectors or whether it's regions in the province or whether it's political parties, this piece of legislation has endured a round of condem- nation that really speaks to the unfairness of the legislation and its ineffectiveness. It's clearly regionally unfair.

Northern mayors — although I don't know whether Williams Lake is really truly north, but it's certainly north of the Lower Mainland and north of this part of the lower Island — have very strikingly set out an intention. I'm speaking of the mayor of Williams Lake, Scott Nelson, who is leading a charge by northern municipalities to refuse to pay the tax on municipal fuel purchases. Mr. Nelson says, and I'm qu oting from an

article in the Globe and Mail on May 17, 2008…. He's a member of the Liberal Party; he's not a New Democrat. He says: "I've worked on the Premier's campaign. I worked for the B.C. Liberal Party. I am a supporter of government. But because you're a supporter doesn't necessitate that

12716 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 you should be handcuffed and duct-taped not to protect your taxpayers and your municipality." So here's a professed Liberal supporter, a supporter of the Premier. He uses a very vivid metaphor — being handcuffed and duct-taped by the provincial government and by the Premier — in an attempt to silence him about his opposition to this particular tax. To lead that kind of a revolt is surely a measure of just how deep the dissatisfaction with this goes.

Even more recently than that, the mayor of Williams Lake, the same mayor that I'm speaking of, says that "his council will be looking at withholding payment of the carbon tax on municipal fuel purchases and directing the money into a savings fund until the province proves that the tax will be revenue-neutral for municipalities." The very essence of government is to obtain the consent of the governed.

Here's a significant high- profile municipal leader in the Cariboo — not only a Liberal supporter but a member of the Liberal Party, a supporter of the Premier who has worked for the Premier — who is saying: "Look, we're not going to pay this tax." Is there any attempt to engage Mr. Nelson, to have members on the other side speak to this? Will the Minister of Finance attempt to justify this? I doubt it. We have barely 30 minutes remaining in all the debate that we will have in this Legi slature this session on this important bill.

I t ' s n o w o n d e r t h a t p e o p l e e x p r e s s t h a t k i n d o f frustration. Other mayors ha ve written to the Minister of Finance. I've got a letter here from Mayor Angela Brand-Danuser, the mayor of the district of Stewart.

She expresses the concern abou t this tax, and I'm going to quote from her letter: "People in the north do not have access to extensive publ ic transportation options, and many remote northern communities do not have any public transportation." The "do not have any" is underlined in her letter in the way in which I have attempted to emphasize it verbally. [1130] She gives an example: "In Stewart, for example, if you need to see a dentist, you have to drive 350 kilometres one way. That is true for any service other than general medical visits — eye doctors, pharmacists, chiropractors.

People living in remote communities understand we do not have the same amenities as people in urban centres. However, we should not be penalized for circumstances that are beyond our control." There's another mayor expressing her concern about the effect of this tax, the lack of any consultation, the lack of any realism about the reality of the lives that people in northern communities live — just swept aside by the Minister of Fi nance, no concern. As the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca has said, people have been told to eat their porridge and like it, and that's it.

The response of the government is: "Well, that's tough." As the minister might say, "Boo hoo" — no concern at all, none expressed. This bill is going through. In two hours it's going to be rammed through this Legislature, and the concerns of those citizens, the duct-taped and handcuffed members of the public — at least that's how they feel, according to the mayor of Williams Lake…. This legislation is just going to be rammed through despite their protests. Let's look at another letter from another mayor — the village of Massett over on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I'm going to quote a little bit from the letter.

This is, again, a letter that's written to the Minister of Finance. Barry Pages, who's the mayor of the village of Massett, says: "Homes and businesses have two choices for heat: oil and electricity. However, all of our elec- tricity is diesel-generated in the first place, so there's no environmental benefit and no cost benefit to switching to electricity." The current price of oil then in Massett was $1.13 while in Prince Rupert, it was $1.05. This was written back on March 13, 2008, and that may be different now.

"The proposed carbon tax will mean a direct increase to home heating costs of at least $55 a year and will rise to over $165 by 2012. Those costs do not take into consideration the compounding effect that will result from increased transportation costs to get that heating oil to the islands." He goes on to talk about the impact of freight rates upon basic commodities such as food. Freight rates range from 80 cents to a dollar per pound. As an example of the impact of freight costs, milk in Massett is $6.69 a gallon and in Prince Rupert is $3.99.

So there's another remote community in British Columbia, the village of Massett, where the mayor is making a very detailed and eloquent plea for some consideration, some recognition, of the reality of that community. He's been rebuffed by the Minister of Finance. "Eat your porridge. Nothing's going to change. This bill is going through. We're just ramming it through the Legislature. Your concerns — too bad. Tough for you; tough for your community. We don't really care. We developed this legislation in secrecy. We didn't have a chance to consult with you because we didn't want to. We're not going to consult now.

We're not going to change the legislation. It's done. It's through, and tough luck." That seems to be the message of the government to those communities. It's recognized by these mayors, on behalf of their communities, that there are regional differences that a fair tax might seek to accommodate. It's not unknown. Certainly in the federal income tax, there are provisions for northern allowances where people are entitled to, in their personal tax, greater deductions for the additional costs that come from living in northern and remote locations.

Those are designat ed in the federal Income Tax Act, so it's not something that can't be done. It's just something that won't be done because this government is not interested in listening to those citizens or taking any account of their concerns.

The reality for northern British Columbia is colder winters leading to higher heating costs, a longer drive for work and for basic services — as the mayor of the district of Stewart pointed out, 350 kilometres, one way, for all kinds of medical visits, if they're required — and winter driving conditions that require larger and heavier vehicles, which are not as fuel-efficient as other vehicles. [1135]

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12717 So that's a sense of the regional concerns that have been expressed. Now the other significant area…. Part of the justification for this piece of legislation that's advanced is that it will lead to, in its design, reductions in corporate income tax and personal income tax over the years to come. But the reality for a lot of businesses is that a reduc- tion in income tax presumes that you're making a profit. For much of the forest industry at the present time, they're not making a profit .

They're losing, and the losses are mounting, as is very evident from the number of closures that are taking place. Even those companies that are continuing are suffering financial losses. So an income tax reduction doesn't apply if you're not making money. However, a carbon tax, a fuel tax on your inputs, does apply. For industries that are in financial trouble, for a vari ety of reasons which we've talked about here in this House, they will be paying increased costs at a time wh en their balance sheets are hemorrhaging.

There's no attempt in this legislation, or in any kind of discussion that has taken place since the legislation was introduced, to attempt to design this legislation in a way that might recognize that reality — to introduce some transitional provisions for industries that might need that temporary assistan ce to transition through this part of the economic cycle. There's nothing.

It's well recognized that some industries — for example, the financial services sector, the banks — will receive the same corporate tax deduction that, in theory, the forest companies are enti tled to but probably won't be able to take advantage of because they're not making a profit. They don't have the same requirements. The corporate tax reduction that's promised will be a financial benefit to them,

whereas to the forest industry, it will simply be an increased cost. How is that fair? One can well imagine, as representations have been made by the senior business leaders in the province to the Minister of Finance…. How is that fair? Is that the best way to design a piece of legislation? Is that fair taxation? Certainly, the view of some is that, in many industries, it's not. So there's opposition to this tax in those quarters. Many industries — some industries, particularly, such as trucking….

One might wish in a policy sense that people transported all their goods by rail, and perhaps in the long run that will take place, but at present, the rail system serves…. Well, it serves many parts of the province. It certainly doesn't serve all parts of the province. Trucking is an essential part of the economy. Many trucking firms are relatively small firms. They're not big firms, and there are also many independent truckers who earn their living as self-employed individuals. They will be bearing the cost of this tax directly. It will impact on their bottom line. It 's the very nature of their business.

There's no transitional provisions for them in this legislation. There's nothing to ease the impact. The message from the government is: "Suck it up. Tough — you've got to do it." If it causes financial impact, causes hardship, particularly for individual independent operators, tough, too bad. That's the way it's going to be. [1140] That's not the way in which good legislation is designed, but that is the ha llmark of the government.

Design something in secret, cook it up in the cabinet room and then pour it out to the public and simply ignore their protests, ignore their suggestions and ram it through the Legislature, just as this bill is being done. There are other problems with this piece of legislation that are, again, well known and have been discussed. Although it purports to give a low-income tax credit to people who qualify at the bottom end of the income scale, it will not…. As it's designed, it doesn't increase in years three, four and five . The credit that's projected is not set out in years three, four and five.

So while the cost to an individual paying the tax will increase, the cost of the tax credit will not. So the gap and the portion of the tax that an individu al will pay personally will increase. The other problem that's very basic in the design of this low-income tax credit is that it interferes with the cash flow of a low-income person. In other words, you have to pay the tax as you go along and then wait to get the rebate each quarter. While that may seem like a small thing for those more wealthy in the population, for many people that will be a hardship.

Although the credit may help them, they'll have to pay it out of their pocket and wait for the return. I'm not sure whether we'll see the tax discounters, much as we see in the case of income tax, where people sell the right to obtain their income tax return and usually hand over a certain portion of that to a tax discounter. There are businesses that do that. I'm not sure whether we will see a whole new industry in low-income neighbourhoods where people will be handing over their low-income tax credit to tax discounters in the chance to get it immediately rather than wait to receive it in the time

schedule that the government has set out. That may very well take place. So that is a problem with the legislation. Again, that's been the subject of some public discussion, but there's no opportunity, in the time that we have allocated here, to introduce amendmen ts. The minister has very clearly indicated publicly her lack of receptivity to any amendments, any changes. This one's going through. It's like gravel through a sluice. The sluice is all designed, and it's all being rammed through. So we're not going to have that discussion. We're not going to have those amendments.

We're not going to respond to those concerns that have been identified. The message from the government is: "Tough. Too bad. It's going through." I want to touch on another aspect of this bill, part of the discussion that we've engaged in since the Minister of Finance came to the Finance Committee back in September of last year. I asked her what she expected the relationship between a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system might be. At that time she didn't have a response, which was fair enough. It's now June, some cons iderable time later. The climate change secretariat has been working away behind closed doors.

What is the mechanism, and what is the relationship between the carbon tax and the cap-and- trade system? We're no closer to an answer after nine

12718 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 months, despite a few favourable editorials. The very essence of the relationship between those two taxes has not been explained. The cap-and-trade bill, which was brought before the House and debated as a shell of a bill, is all left to regulation.

When questioned about these very basic topics, the minister responsible didn't have an answer. [1145] That very basic design flaw speaks to the fact that this legislation is not thought through and will not be effective, because the cap-and-trade system will cover some 30 percent to 40 percent of emissions in the province. It's uncertain when it will be introduced. It's uncertain how it will be integrated with the carbon tax. There are no answers forthcoming. So I want to….

There are many others who wish to speak in the brief time that is allocated, so I will close briefly — just to say, in conclusion, that this tax isn't fair, and it will not reduce emissions. The Premier has made it very clear that he is not prepared to engage or respond to the valid concerns of British Columbians about this tax. Accordingly, that's why we will not be supporting this piece of legislation. M.

Karagianis: I'm taking this opportunity to stand and speak to this bill, beca use as the members on this side of the House know, we are, in fact, being denied the opportunity to debate very many bills in this House in this session. This government has chosen to evoke a closure bill on much of the legislation and has not given us our opportunity for full and fair democratic debate on this — or, in the case of this bill this morning, o n ly the most superficial opportunity to debate. We have a few scant hours. We have many members here who want to stand up and speak out on behalf of their constituents.

I'd like to be on the record to say that I do support the concept of a carbon tax. I believe that it is an important aspect of our fight against climate change, but I also know that it has to be something that is fair and equitable across this province and that we need to start with the top, with the worst polluters, with those who are doing the most damage right now in the province of British Columbia. We have to start there in order to make sig- nificant and real change.

As long as we are going to expect that this will all be borne on the shoulders of the consumers, I think that it is a failure by this government. I have been hearing daily from my own constituents about their immediate reaction to this unfair gas tax that's being imposed upon them. Unless there are alternatives for consumers, then this is an unfair gas tax and merely that — a gas tax that they have no other options to avoid.

So the fact that the government has not seen fit to invest in transit and pr ovide some of those options so that if people want to make a choice and get out of their cars and drive less, th at those options are very real and available for them…. Then, this carbon tax is not doing its job. It's not going to change behaviour, because behaviour can't be changed if those options are not in place. Providing options for thos e who live in rural British Columbia who are going to be disproportionately affected by this, because they have very few options….

They have to drive for every one of their needs — to work, to get their kids to school, to get to medical appointments. All that's going to happen for them is that it's going to cost them more. The government is going to impose this tax on them without any other options or alternatives for them. We had a very interesting debate in this House about biofuel, about the options for biodiesel. We, on this side of the House…. In fact, I put forward an amendment asking the govern ment to actually include some sustainability language in their push to promote biofuels, and the government refused to do that.

On the one hand, we see the government trying to show, in some superficial way, that they're going to try and address climate change — on the backs of consumers, with an unfair gas tax — and on the other hand, we don't see any kind of incentives being put in place to actually create options for people. I have seen nothing from this government that offers incentives for things like geothermal heat pumps, for solar installation in your homes. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] M y o w n p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h i s … .

I h a v e been looking at installing solar systems in my own house, for my own personal use. It is very, very expensive. It's not something that average working people in this province can afford, and I don't see anything here in the way of fair treatment for working families that would allow them to access some of these options so they can participate fairly in the whole initiative of climate change.

For those of us that live on an island, we don't have many options but to buy go ods and services that are shipped to us from afar. [1150] There will be a cumulative effect of this gas tax on every single thing we purchase here on the Island, and we have no options around that. When the Minister of Finance says that this is going to be neutral to the con- sumer — cost-neutral, revenue-neutral to the consumer — nothing could be further from the truth.

Although the government is doing this sort of trivi- alized hundred-dollar "buy yourself a pair of running shoes" initiative, the reality is that every single thing we purchase here on Vancouver Island in the future will be affected by this gas tax, from our ferry fares to our food that's brought in, to anything that's brought onto this Island for us to purchase, even our plane fares now to get back and forth off here. We have no options. That gas tax is going to be cumulative on every single thing we do. There is no neutrality available for us.

This hundred dollars to buy a pair of running shoes is going to quickly be eaten up, and real costs are going to be borne every single day by working people here. I know that we have other speakers here. We're all trying to cram ourselves into these brief little two hours that we're allowed to respond to this bill.

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12719 I'm standing here to say no on behalf of my con- stituents. We are offended by another gas tax, with rising costs of fuel right now anyway, which certainly hasn't changed behaviour. We can already see, you know, that gas is going up at the pump every single day. Has that changed anybody's behaviour? No. How can it? We don't have any other options. Where else are we going to go? How else are you going to get to work, get to your doctor's appointment and get your kids back and forth? No options there. We're just going to pay more every single day.

That's not a climate action plan. Therefore, I cannot support this, my constituents cannot support this, and I'll be voting against it. G. Robertson: Again, I'll echo the concerns of my colleagues in that we have so little time, only in this morning's session, to start in on this bill and are very much limited in terms of time left on the legislative calendar to address these concerns. I'll just start on Bill 37 by voicing my strong support for the principle of putting a price on emissions, for a c a r b o n t a x , i f i t ' s f a i r a nd effective but primarily to ensure that polluters pay.

All of us pollute in different ways. The big failing in terms of this bill is that those who pollute the most are getting a free ride. We know that this package of bills that has been brought forward in an effort to achieve the targets which were legislated last year is supposed to amount to a robust strategy. Unfortunately, what we're seeing here today with this carbon tax bill…. It is a piece of the puzzle that no doubt is an important one, no doubt is critical in terms of addressing climate change. Climate change is the ultimate test of political courage.

Unfortunately, we're not seeing a courageous stand being taken here — or really effective, meaningful and equitable solutions being put forward for the people of B.C. to embrace. People are not being enabled to make the changes. Ultimately, that's the role of government, to enable people to make the changes. With a threat as daunting as climate change is, we have precious little time to take the most effective steps possible. We're seeing an unfortunate, missed opportunity here.

Specifically, the challenges that we have with this bill are not only in terms of its equitability for people around the regions of B.C. — people who do not have options to limit their consumption of fossil fuels right now. The big flaw in this bill, in that it needs to fit with these other climate change bills, is that the big emitters are not being included in terms of a carbon tax, and they're not specifically being identified within the cap- and-trade scheme. We don't know what the cap-and trade scheme is at this point. It could be many years off before it's imple- mented.

In the meantime, 30 percent to 40 percent of B.C.'s emissions are not priced, are not regulated. In effect, we make no progress with the big emitters. Now, this is a key piece that is missing. It could have been integrated into this bill proactively and amended in future, at such time as cap-and-trade legislation and regulation comes into effect, to effectively reduce the emissions from the big industrial sectors. At this point, though, that doesn't exist. [1155] We will look to the committee stage of this bill.

I will look at committee stage for moving amendments to strengthen this bill to ensure that big emitters do play a role here in terms of toeing the line and paying their share of the costs, their share of the emissions. We need to do that at the outset here and ensure that it's fair for everyone across the province of B.C. It is infuriating, I think, to many people around the province that this has been constructed in secret and that they have had no voice.

Not only is our voice here in the Legislature being constrained by the calendar and by the movement of closure by the government on a number of these very important bills and initiatives, but the people of B.C. have been left out. They are being forced into this carbon tax program without having a voice in it, without having even the ability through the opposition to debate that robustly and to effect change.

My hope is that the government will be open to changes and amendments that strengthen the bill as it's proposed — and the other bills that have come forward in the House as part of th e climate change package. I think everyone around the province wants to take meaningful action, but we need to have the right tools, the right instruments. We need to have the right incentives to do that. These have not been offered up in the budget this year. They are not being facilitated in the legislation that is being moved in this House.

There is a real concern that there are loopholes being created here for big industry and a real concern that there has not been broad-based consultation with the people of B.C. It's important that we de bate this openly. It's im- portant that we ensure that the whole package to tackle climate change in B.C. is as strong as possible and that B.C. truly is a leader that sets an example for jurisdictions around the world in fighting climate change. Noting the time, Mr. Speaker, and reserving my right to continue my remarks on this bill, I move adjournment of debate. G. Robertson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

12720 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair. The committee met at 10:10 a.m. On Vote 29: ministry operations, $216,815,000 . C. Trevena: I thank the minister. Just to advise him, as we mentioned before we started, the Environment critic is tied up in the big House at the moment discussing the carbon tax.

When he comes back, he will be wanting to talk, so the minister's staff is aware…. General ministry issues, climate change, biodiversity, parks, water and environmental assessment are the areas that the member for Vancouver-Hastings will be raising when he gets back. In the meantime, my colleagues and I have a number of, I think, local questions that we'd like to discuss with you. So if I can hand over to my colleague from Alberni- Qualicum. S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and his staff. I'm going to start with…. There is a local component to the first set of questions, but it's around cave protection.

I know that in the Port Alberni region there are significant karst features and some amazing caves, which I've had the opportunity to explore. It is a bit of a passion of mine, although I don't get to do it very often anymore. Going underground is a unique experience, and ther e are new life forms being found in these systems. It's quite fascinating in a lot of ways. I know that the minister was good enough to meet with myself, Paul Griffiths and Reid Robinson, who are cave experts in their own ri ght in the province. I also met with your senior staff. I think it was the regional manager, Mr. Heath.

I don't know if you have everyone you need to talk about an underground economy. No, I won't go into the puns yet, but I guess I already did. There's a great need for overriding cave protection legislation in British Columbia. It's a gap that's been allowed to occur for decades. I raised this with the minister at that earlier meeting. I'm wondering. Can the minister let me know if we're making any progress on that legis- lation? Hon. B.

Penner: Just before proceeding to address the member's question, I'd like to make a few introductions of the people that are supporting me here this morning, at least at this point. Seated to my left, or to your right, is my deputy minister, Joan Hesketh, and to my right, or your left, is my assistant deputy minister, Nancy Wilkin, for the environmental stewardship division of the Ministry of Environment. And then behind me are some very important people, because th ey keep the eye on the budget for us.

Denise Bragg is our assistant deputy minister for corporate servic es, and Kathy Brereton is our budget manager. She attempts to keep track of our shekels and where they go or don't go. Just to respond to the member's questions about caves. His interest in caving makes me think that maybe he's a caveman. That's my pun for the day. I've spent some time, also, doing some spelunking. If people can overcome their sense of claustrophobia, which I sometimes am prone to, it's something that's quite exciting. In British Columbia we are blessed with a number of very unique caving opportunities and underground experiences.

As well, as th e member notes, there are some unique ecological and environmental aspects to the biology that takes place subsurface. Within parks and protecte d areas the Ministry of Environment does have lead responsibility for protecting caves and cave structures and for controlling access, and that's something we do. Outside of the parks and protected areas network I'm advised that the Ministry of Forests is working on po licy at the moment. I'm not a

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0522am 02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0522am 02
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4ffeffd6db64111478c4006e0fc7984d83f93812

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).