2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 34, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Second Reading of Bills

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

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

Hon. B. Penner

R. Chouhan

C. Wyse

[ Page 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 conclusions, drawn from the most recent report by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

There is also an overwhelming scientific consensus that the main

cause of climate 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 organizations 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 fossil fuels in British Columbia beginning July 1, 2008. The

tax rate is calculated on the CO2-equivalent emissions generated 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 CO2-equivalent emissions when burned, the carbon tax has been translated 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 CO2-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 taxpayers for decisions made prior

to the announcement of the tax.

The third principle is that 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 integrated 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

[ Page 12706 ]

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

internationally 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 tax 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 effective, 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 biodiversity is, what the impact will be

on future generations of Canadians and of people around the world.

We know that this is arguably the issue of our time. We know that

this is an issue that we all need to be engaged in and that we all need to make

efforts to resolve.

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 important 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 the 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 they 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'clock, 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 government'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.

[ Page 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 many others, to bring down emissions. It is not

about whether these are good ideas. 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 references

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 Foundation 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 undermines 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 carbon 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 importance of emissions

pricing, but there are serious questions 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 government that has continued to promote and look for ways to make

offshore oil and gas happen. We have a government that has continued to promote

a range of issues around the advancement of roads and bridges over transit.

[ Page 12708 ]

We have a government that has created a total disconnect between

this file related to climate change, which gets driven out of the 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 in ways that had never been done before. It included

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 greenhouse gas action

plan and climate change plan. It pioneered the Green Economy Secretariat, which

was developed to look at the creation 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 Power 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 increases 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 the 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 vehicles on the road. 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 recognize the need for

regional fairness and regional differences.

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

constituents 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

[ Page 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, Kitimat, 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 consulted. 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 is ongoing. We have no idea what it's going to look

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.

What we know is that if we see increases, as has 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 reason to believe that is going to be offset,

because 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

[ Page 12710 ]

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 around 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 this 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 transparent way. He doesn't want legislators out spending that time

doing their job on this 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 loading

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 change 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

[ Page 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 challenges 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 enforcement 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 and 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

governments 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 effective

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 about 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 significantly lower number

that will capture all of the players.

We also need to capture transportation. That's a very large piece

of this issue 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 auction 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 challenging 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 transition 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.

[ Page 12712 ]

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 going 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 systems, the

installation of solar panels and other technologies that will conserve energy.

If we want people to change their behaviour, 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 download that they have seen from the B.C. Liberals 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, provide 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 governments and first nations. We know

that this government, through its private power strategy, has eroded and eroded

B.C. Hydro's role and continues to do that. It is only through the public

reaction that you have seen any halting or slowing of that process, as the

government 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 should be the leader in developing 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?

At a time when we have a government that has 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

[ Page 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 transportation 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 place 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 regulations 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 levels 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 communities 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 through 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 unravel 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 economy. 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 funding 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 legislation 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 analysis. 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 prioritized 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 and flourish as citizens for our climate. When we talk about changes in

behaviour,

[ Page 12714 ]

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 sustaining 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 accountability. 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 change. 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 climate 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 Columbians. We need to be

transparent. We need to engage 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.

As we begin to look at this, as we begin to talk 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 reason for is to go

out 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 one 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.

[ Page 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 at what

is called second reading, 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 many members as wanted to address this important issue, to what's called

committee 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 legislative 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 the

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 commitment to this

legislation and to the agenda that they claim they're advancing — that it's

coming forward in this way. In my view, that's a significant 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 government'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,

contrary 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 Columbia.

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 not 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 sticky fingers of the Premier all over

it, and it suffers because of it.

That's the reason why there has been such a reaction against this

legislation from very, very diverse parts of the province. Whether it's economic

sectors or whether it's regions in the province or whether it's political

parties, this piece of legislation has endured a round of condemnation 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 quoting 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

[ Page 12716 ]

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 Legislature this session on this important bill.

It's no wonder that people express that kind of frustration. Other

mayors have 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 about this tax, and I'm going to quote from her letter: "People in

the north do not have access to extensive public 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 Finance, 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 electricity 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 designated 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]

[ Page 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 reduction 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 variety of reasons which we've

talked about here in this House, they will be paying increased costs at a time

when 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 assistance 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 entitled 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 hallmark 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

individual 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 amendments. 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 considerable 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

[ Page 12718 ]

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, because 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, only 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

significant 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 provide some of those

options so that if people want to make a choice and get out of their cars and

drive less, that 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 those 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 government 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.]

My own personal experience with this…. I have 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 goods 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 consumer —

cost-neutral, revenue-neutral to the consumer — nothing could be further from

the truth.

Although the government is doing this sort of trivialized

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.

[ Page 12719 ]

I'm standing here to say no on behalf of my constituents. 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 carbon tax, if it's fair and

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 implemented. 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 the 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 debate this openly. It's important 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.

[ Page 12720 ]

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 there 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 right 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 legislation?

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 they

keep the eye on the budget for us. Denise Bragg is our assistant deputy minister

for corporate services, 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 the member notes,

there are some unique ecological and environmental aspects to the biology that

takes place subsurface.

Within parks and protected 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

policy at the moment. I'm not aware of any specific legislation that's being

developed, but I understand that there is policy work being done. That's being

led, I am advised, by the Ministry of Forests.

[1015]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm aware of

the work that the Ministry of Forests has done. There are karst orders in place

in some jurisdictions for protection of karst, but these are guidelines. They're

not overarching legislation.

History has shown that, actually, these protections are often not

invoked. By far the largest portion of karst and cave systems in British

Columbia is on public land, and only a small percentage of those are within the

boundaries of parks. So we are way behind the rest of the world as far as

protection goes.

I'll note that it was, I think, 1998 that the United States

brought in a federal cave protection act to address that. So they're two decades

ahead of us. Again, this is on public, federally controlled land. There are very

effective models. They may not be perfect, but they are in use now in other

jurisdictions as close as the United States.

The fact is that cave management guidelines, including recommended

best practices, which are recognized by the ministry but are mostly for

protecting paleontological and archaeological research in caves, are often

simply ignored, even by people who should know better, and damage occurs.

There is no cave protection, in essence, in the province. Simply,

there's no overarching protection at all that's in place dealing with public

land — or private land for that matter. But I'll just deal with, keeping it

simple, the public land aspect here.

[ Page 12721 ]

We've got — and I mentioned this to your regional manager when we

met earlier — the incident that happened in Ontario, the terrible incident in

Walkerton of poisoning. The contaminated water system there travelled

underground — out of sight, out of mind — through a karst system. That was not

recognized. It wasn't recognized until after the fact.

So where the estimates were that the water was going to be sifting

through the ground and eventually making it to the source for access for

drinking water…. Actually, the estimates were off by 70 times — not 70 percent,

70 times. The residence time was hours — not, like, 30 days. The water travelled

very quickly through a karst system — basically an underground river.

So there is a huge issue here, potentially, for public health and

safety. But it's an environmental issue. The minister pointed out that there are

many values in the caves, and not just the recreation we cavers or spelunkers….

There are the biological values, there are the ecological values, there are the

hydrological values, there are spiritual values, there are cultural values, and

there are first nations values.

But dealing with the hydrological, if we're dealing with, as the

Ministry of Environment must be, protection of watersheds, to ignore the…. We

have great protections in place in some cases for surface water — for rivers and

water runoff. But once it's underground, it's no less significant. Yet those

protections cease to exist underground.

So I'm urging the minister to consider, as we raised earlier, the

need for some sort of overarching protection. The Ministry of Forests…. Even the

karst orders that are there which could be used and are sometimes used, but only

in certain jurisdictions, only address forestry issues — harvesting,

silviculture, roadbuilding. No other uses, whether they are….

Besides forestry, there are a lot of different things that can

damage cave systems, which are very sensitive to siltation and that sort of

thing. There's no coverage for that, and I don't know any other ministry that

could handle the overriding, overarching legislation that would be necessary for

that.

[1020]

Again, it's in place in the United States. They've got cave

protection that actually leads also to enhanced karst protection — karst being,

of course, the larger, underground limestone systems. Can the minister comment

on my lengthy chat here?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that under the Forest and Range

Practices Act, the various karst orders that the member refers to have been put

in effect by the Ministry of Forests and Range. It's possible that there are

additional locations that they could consider. It's certainly something that I

can speak to my colleague, the Minister of Forests, about.

My expectation would be that a karst order, if it's sufficient to

protect against damage from forestry operations, would have some co-benefits and

protect against the damage, perhaps, from other things. I don't know that for a

certainty, but that's entirely possible.

I haven't been apprised by the water stewardship division of the

Ministry of Environment of any particular concerns that have come to light

regarding underground water systems or rivers that the member refers to.

Undoubtedly, we do have some in British Columbia, I suspect, but I haven't been

advised or apprised of any concerns that have arisen or been brought to the

ministry's attention over the years pertaining to the quality of that water or

any harmful or deleterious effects.

That's not to say we don't want to keep an eye on things, so we'll

certainly have a conversation with my colleague, the Minister of Forests, and

look forward to reviewing the legislation that the member says exists — I'm not

sure if it's at the federal level or at the state level — in the United States.

Maybe he can clarify.

S. Fraser: It's federal cave legislation that was brought

in, in 1998, in the United States. There has been cave legislation proposed

here. It was in the '70s, I believe, and it has been sort of sitting somewhere

collecting dust through consecutive governments. It has been recognized, the

importance to protect caves and karst systems. Whether or not anything has been

flagged to you specifically as the minister, I'm flagging for you right now on

the record.

The E. coli poisonings of many residents, leading to death

and injury in Walkerton, were linked directly to a karst system and water

systems. I'm not a hydrologist; none of us are in this room, maybe. There are a

few, but there are not usually a lot of people putting up their hands for a

hydrologist when you ask the question. Many hydrologists do not have training on

karst systems, anyway.

But if you were a hydrologist, and you have impact or

contamination on the surface that seeps into a karst system, it will travel very

quickly. It will not sift through the sand. It will not go through a natural

wetland cleansing process. It will come out, basically. As dye tests have shown

over and over again with karst systems, water will travel basically unfiltered

from one place to another as quickly as a river will go — and faster, in some

cases, because we have got some great verticals in cave systems.

So you can go many miles in just a few hours with water.

Basically, the same contamination level that happened at the source will be at

the end.

If we're looking at trying to protect watersheds, people's

drinking water and fisheries values, we cannot do it. There's a physics case

here to be made. We cannot do it without addressing the protection of the water

systems through karst.

Now, I believe there are a lot of greater reasons and higher

reasons to protect karst systems and caves with a proper cave protection act,

and the rest of the world seems to think so. We're far behind the rest of the

world. I don't like to keep throwing this back at the minister, but I will. The

fourth great goal talks about leading the world, and we're not. We're far, far

behind on cave protection.

I'd ask the minister, again. The forest karst orders that are in

certain districts are not enough. They're not

[ Page 12722 ]

protecting valuable karst values and cave values in a lot of the province —

in most of the province, on provincially controlled land, on public land. So

there are all sorts of other potential…. There are agriculture issues. There is

potential for pesticide use in areas that could directly go into drinking water

or into areas that we don't know.

[1025]

So being mindful of karst is one thing. Having protection for

karst systems for all the right reasons and for overarching cave protection must

come, I believe, from the Ministry of the Environment, because the Ministry of

Forests has a very narrow mandate in dealing with protection issues. They don't

deal with potential agricultural impacts. They don't deal with potential mining

impacts. They don't deal with development issues in general.

There are hydro lines that are put in, where Hydro puts them in

right through. There is roadbuilding right over karst systems, where they

siltate those systems up and where drinking water is drawn from downstream as

groundwater. A spring seems like a pure thing. A spring is often coming through

a karst system, and a spring will be carrying whatever turbidity or whatever

impurities are going to seep through at its source.

Again, I'd ask the minister…. I don't want him to defer this to

the Ministry of Forests. I want complete, overarching protection that the rest

of the world seems to think is important. I think it's important. I know the

minister respects the importance of these systems. He's been in them before.

They are a living life form in their own right, and they are ignored because

they're underground. Can the minister comment?

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member's passion about

this issue. I certainly take his comments under advisement. We'll take a look at

that U.S. federal legislation that the member has identified. We'll see if we

can access that and see if it would have application potentially here in British

Columbia.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for that. I know I have

limited time here, so I can't talk on caves forever, but I appreciate the

minister's comments. I'll be getting back to him on that and consulting with him

further on that to see where we're going, because I do want to see some sort of

legislation brought in place or at least the issue debated. We need to have

that. Many of our colleagues do not know anything about the importance of these

systems. I think that would be a useful endeavour also.

On the same day that I was meeting with the minister on cave

protection, earlier, just prior to that, we met on a sensitive wetland issue —

an area owned by Island Timberlands just beside Qualicum Beach known as Hamilton

Marsh. It has great ecological values and great hydrological values, and it's

part of a sensitive watershed, as I brought to the minister's attention.

Certainly, the group I brought — Robin and Carrie, who came all the way from

Qualicum Beach to meet with you — put it best, but this is something that's of

huge public interest: protecting these sensitive wetlands.

I know there are precedents where the ministry has stepped in and

acquired these in the interests of protecting hydrological values or biological

values. This has a huge amount of species of birds and aquatic animals, and

again, it's an integral part of the watershed in the Qualicum Beach area.

Has the minister got anywhere on…? He recognized at the meeting, I

believe, the importance of these wetlands and, certainly, acknowledged that

Hamilton Marsh was on his radar screen. Can the minister comment on where we've

got since then?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. We did have a

meeting with a number of his, I think, constituents as people who had contacted

the member. We met here at the Legislature and talked about that issue, as well

as the cave protection issue.

In terms of the concern around Hamilton Marsh, I did have a chance

to look at the photographs that the member provided, and I have had a chance to

follow up with ministry staff since then.

In addition, I had a meeting with representatives of Island

Timberlands following that meeting and expressed to them our general interest in

that particular area. Island Timberlands, in turn, conveyed to me that they're

doing a review of a number of their properties on Vancouver Island and that

they're not yet in a position to determine the disposition of that particular

piece of land. If I remember the conversation correctly, they're still working

through some kind of internal process or internal transition or something.

The Ministry of Environment every year has a priority list that

comes up from the regions or across the province about potential lands for

acquisition and ultimate inclusion in our protected-areas network. The different

proposals have to be assessed against the ministry's criteria for what is top

priority, and those considerations include whether or not similar ecosystems are

protected already or are adequately represented in our network of protected

areas.

[1030]

Just where this particular proposal lands, I'm not entirely sure.

It is on our regional list, but I don't know exactly where it ranks in terms of

other competing ideas. There are other areas on Vancouver Island where I get

letters from people saying: "This is the most important area. This one, right

near where I live, is the one that should be protected first, before something

else."

That's not to say Hamilton Marsh wouldn't be, but we are looking

at a range of different proposals for Vancouver Island for the coming year.

Island Timberlands has said that they'll be happy to get back to us in a while.

I don't know exactly how long. They're still doing some kind of internal review

about the future of some of their lands.

S. Fraser: Hamilton Marsh. There are not just a few letters

from a few people. There have been many petitions that I have submitted to the

Legislature. Mayor Teunis Westbroek and Coun. Barry Avis, both from Qualicum

Beach…. The community is behind it officially,

[ Page 12723 ]

through the municipal government. The regional district is behind the

acquisition of this land. Ducks Unlimited has been working on this, and Islands

Trust has been working on this.

This is not just a small sort of grass-roots group. There is that

too, but it is officially the municipal government's position and the regional

district's position — again, working with groups like Ducks Unlimited and

Islands Trust, which we've seen all come together to acquire the land, including

offers to purchase.

They were at the eleventh hour of those negotiations with Island

Timberlands, when suddenly Island Timberlands stopped and said that they were

reassessing their inventory. I understand that, but that was happening about the

same time that they were moving their forest assets offshore to Bermuda. They're

now in a tax haven, and they've been able to do that to avoid some Canadian

taxes, I guess, and also to avoid some civil suit that could happen.

I'm concerned about that level of control being lost from the

public here in B.C. — another issue.

Hon. B. Penner: A civil suit related to the Hamilton Marsh?

S. Fraser: Yeah, they're the owners of the…. It's the same

time frame that they pulled out of the negotiations. I would like to remind the

minister that all these groups — the local, the community, the city council, the

municipal government, the regional district, Ducks Unlimited — came together to

acquire this land with money in hand. They've got a huge amount of support

financially from individuals, but also these groups have acquired it.

A partnership with the ministry would be a no-brainer, because

they've already done a lot of this work in negotiating, and they've already come

up with substantial resources to actually come to the table and offer money

here.

But when Island Timberlands pulled out of that negotiation, was it

the same time frame when they were assessing their inventory? They were

assessing inventory, I suggest, because Brookfield Asset Management, which owns

Island Timberlands, was moving its forest assets in B.C. offshore. They were not

physically moving it offshore, although certainly some of the logs are going

offshore. Well, that's another issue.

That portion of the company was being moved, basically, through an

investment vehicle out of Bermuda, I believe, or a Caribbean tax haven — another

concern. If there were ever a priority, I would hope that the minister would

look at the level of public support for protecting this valuable, sensitive part

of the watershed and the water supply system for Qualicum Beach and, for that

matter, potentially for Parksville, too, and the regional district.

With that level of support and partnership, not just from

individuals — certainly those — but also from local governments, regional

district governments and other groups such as Ducks Unlimited, I would suggest

that this one could be moved higher in the priority list, especially since

they've already put together the resources necessary to acquire the land. It

could be a fairly simple and, I think, a worthwhile watershed to move up on the

priority list.

There's my plug for my constituency. Can the minister comment?

The Chair: Could I remind all members to direct their

comments through the Chair.

[1035]

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member's interest in this

issue. The member referred to a number of groups that, potentially, could form a

partnership in this endeavour. In fact, the ministry does partner with many of

those groups that he's just identified in acquiring additional lands every year.

In fact, last August I had the opportunity to join my colleague from

Nanaimo-Parksville on a beautiful day to go and plant the B.C. flag on the shore

of…

A Voice: Gerald Island.

Hon. B. Penner: …Gerald Island, a piece of property we were

able to acquire on behalf of the province of British Columbia, with the help of

a number of partner groups. By leveraging funds that other groups can bring to

the table, we can do more than if we're simply acting on our own, so we do like

to collaborate and work with other groups.

In terms of this particular item that the member identifies,

Hamilton Marsh, the member is correct. The lands are owned by Island

Timberlands. Since they are privately held, it would require a willing seller in

order for those lands to change hands.

A couple of other things, just for the member's interest. The

factors that we look at and that I attempted to enunciate earlier include the

ecological considerations or values of the proposed lands; the recreational

benefits or opportunities that those lands may provide to the public, because

one of the interests of B.C. Parks is encouraging public recreation and use of

the outdoors; as well as public interest, as expressed through various partner

groups.

To the extent that the member says that there are groups out there

willing to help fund the acquisition, that certainly goes towards that

particular consideration — whether there's significant support for that

acquisition. To the extent that there is support from partner groups, it makes

it easier for the government to move forward with those priorities, but

ultimately, we would still require a willing seller.

S. Fraser: I'll try to go through the Chair. I just get

carried away sometimes.

Thanks to the minister for that and for all those…. The ecological

values, the hydrological values have been well established for Hamilton Marsh.

They're a water sink for…. Certainly, as the dry season comes in, that helps

provide the groundwater for the whole water system in the area. That has already

been established.

[ Page 12724 ]

Recreationally, I'd like to invite the minister again, if he…. I

know he has a busy schedule. It is well used. There are trail systems through

there. Island Timberlands, to their credit, have allowed the public to access

this. There is a dock system. There is a bit of a blind system for

bird-watching. It's magnificent. So all the values are there, including the

partnerships.

If that's what it needs to get it raised a level, that's good. I

understand that it's a private company, Island Timberlands. However, recent

revelations have shown that the major shareholder, a 25 percent owner of Island

Timberlands, is the government. It's BCIMC. So maybe there's some push that you

can have there as a major shareholder to tell them to go back to the negotiating

table and actually allow the acquisition of this. It would be a great PR piece,

I think, for Island Timberlands.

Just moving on quickly to antifreeze protection. I am wondering if

there has been any movement there. I will apprise the minister that there has

been no slowdown in the level of support for bringing in legislation to protect

the environment, to protect watersheds and to protect wildlife and companion

animals from the dangers of poisonous antifreeze.

As the minister knows, since there is a viable, relatively safe

alternative that's not a poison and not an attractant, as the current antifreeze

is…. It is its own attractant, and a very small amount is lethal, whether it's a

cat, a dog, a raccoon, a duck, a deer or a California condor, one of the most

endangered species in the world. All have succumbed to a painful death by

ingesting antifreeze — a very, very small amount. I won't go into the details

with children, but it's a significant risk also.

We've got support to bring in legislation to make B.C. a first

jurisdiction to be a safe antifreeze region. I understand it would be a carrot,

maybe not a stick initially, but any movement that could be used towards making

people change over…. There is a safe alternative, as I mentioned. I would ask

the minister: have we made any progress in that regard?

I should comment that the minister has said…. Also, the Minister

of Agriculture, when I questioned him in the House earlier about the animal

cruelty legislation that was being brought in for the SPCA, indicated that work

was being done through your ministry to actually bring in legislation. And as

the minister knows, I had a private member's bill that was called out of order

in second reading last year on this.

[1040]

The support is Sierra, Western Canada Wilderness, David Suzuki,

Pacific guide dog association, BCSPCA — a number of groups. If you put them

together with the tens of thousands of individuals that have taken time to write

a letter to the minister, to the Premier and to myself and to sig