Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, November

20, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: A. Kang.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: In the chamber today, we have Gabe Liosis. Gabe is a CA out of my office in Maple

Ridge. He also is one of the youngest elected officials in the province. He's a school

trustee for SD 42.

He's here in the Legislature today shadowing me for the day, and I'm very excited

to have him with us.

Can we all please welcome him.

H. Sandhu: Today I also have a very special guest watching these proceedings in the gallery,

Margo Jarman from Vernon. Margo is a great friend, a big supporter, and she's also

vice-president for the local B.C. NDP constituency association. Margo volunteers with

B.C. Games and many other causes in the community.

This is Margo's first time to be in the Legislature sitting in the gallery to watch

these proceedings.

Would the House please join me to welcome Margo and make her feel very welcomed.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.

This bill amends the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation Act to

ensure the online platform workers performing certain prescribed work are subject

to minimum employment standards, occupational health and safety requirements and workers

compensation protections.

Subsequent regulations will establish ride-hail and food delivery workers as online

platform workers under these acts and will focus on the issues identified through

the Ministry of Labour's engagement as priorities for workers in this sector, such

as fair compensation, pay and destination transparency, account suspensions, deactivations

and terminations, and workers compensation and occupational health and safety coverage.

Part of my mandate as the Minister of Labour is to address the increasing concerns

around gig economy workers. These concerns are not unique to British Columbia. Indeed,

jurisdictions around the world are struggling to find ways to better protect vulnerable

workers in this expanding sector.

I'm extremely proud of the work our government has done to arrive at solutions that

reflect the unique needs of the sector, while preserving the flexibility that the

workers in this sector enjoy and ensuring the continued viability of these services

that British Columbians depend on more and more.

Bill 48 also makes some small but important changes to the Employment Standards Act

and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. These changes will enhance the employment

standards branch operations by improving the timeliness of the dispute resolution

process while also bolstering protections for vulnerable workers.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Private Members’ Statements

HELPING THE WORLD

REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS

E. Ross: On behalf of Skeena, I'm honoured to rise today and speak in favour of how B.C. can

still play a

part in helping to reduce carbon emissions around the globe. In a world

dealing with the need to cut down on carbon emissions while also ensuring the energy

and economic requirements of the nations, LNG — liquid natural gas — projects stand

out as a strong alternative.

We here in B.C. did not fully seize our opportunity to demonstrate our commitment

to delivering a reliable source of clean and ethical energy to those countries who

really need it. But I firmly believe, as I did 19 years ago when we, as Haisla, brought

the LNG initiative to B.C., that we can be at the forefront of this global movement

towards cleaner energy if we make the right decisions now.

Countries worldwide are seeking safe transitional fuels to navigate the complex challenges

of the ongoing energy crisis. Now more than ever B.C. has an opportunity to fully

participate in this transition by investing in infrastructure and approving proposals

that offer a viable alternative in the form of LNG.

LNG remains as a crucial energy alternative for jurisdictions who want to move towards

a carbon-neutral future.

[10:10 a.m.]

B.C. has always had the resources to be a global partner to meet this demand, but

for one reason or another, we've been reluctant or even opposed this idea.

The approval of Cedar LNG and completion of phase 1 of LNG Canada, while significant,

are small pieces of this puzzle. For B.C. to be successful in supplying the world

with LNG, this government needs to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in

place to support the various proposals and projects. This isn't just about economic

growth; it's about ensuring B.C. becomes a leading hub for ethical LNG.

Over the last year, there has been some advancement in specific LNG projects within

the province, but given our capacity, it is not enough to supply the demands of multiple

countries around the world. While these investments are somewhat promising, they underscore

the substantial electrical infrastructure that is required to facilitate the proposed

electrification of the liquefaction processes.

If this government is serious about being a global leader in energy production and

truly wants to supply the world with a better fuel option, we need to build the LNG

facilities necessary to do this, which, in this case, means building and approving

LNG Canada's phase 2. With global demand for natural gas growing, the approval of

LNG Canada's phase 2 would double their export capacity to 28 million tonnes annually.

This would be incredibly beneficial to countries like Japan, which has spoken out

loudly about their need for energy.

Unfortunately for LNG Canada, for their project to proceed, they require significant

energy. As it stands, LNG Canada intends to commence the construction of its proposed

second phase utilizing natural gas–powered turbines, with the intention of transitioning

to electricity if electricity becomes accessible. This strategic choice entails that

the initial stages of the expansion project will yield elevated greenhouse gas emissions.

B.C. has not reached its emissions targets, and it's predicted that this government

won't reach them again. But there is a chance to at least maintain our levels if this

B.C. government commits to making the needed investments to ensure this government

gets on the right track. The gas turbine approach contradicts B.C.'s commitment to

reducing carbon emissions. With the implementation of the appropriate electrical infrastructure,

we could circumvent the reliance on gas turbines, expedite the process and better

align with efforts for global emissions reductions.

If the correct electrical infrastructure was in place, this project could proceed

rapidly and within the correct climate goals. Running the turbines using B.C.'s hydroelectricity

to cool the gas to liquid for shipping would limit emissions but requires at least

$3 billion to upgrade the lines from Prince George to Terrace, B.C., alone.

According to a Reuters article, the CEO of LNG Canada, Jason Klein, stated: "We can't

do an immediate and wholesale electrification of the plant and the pipeline. It's

not possible today because the transmission infrastructure just isn't there." Klein

went on to say how the decision to go ahead with phase 2 would be a no-brainer: "If

the power was there today, it would be a pretty straightforward decision."

The significance of these projects goes beyond economic indicators. It's about creating

good jobs, jobs that people across rural B.C. rely on to feed their families and pay

their bills. Construction alone proved this, not only for LNG Canada but Chevron's

now defunct project.

There have also been recent talks between Alberta and the federal government on utilizing

article 6 of the Paris Agreement, allowing countries to trade carbon offset credits.

The aim is for Alberta and Canada to receive emission reduction credits for LNG exports,

arguing that replacing coal with Canadian LNG can lead to emission reductions. Is

this something that we have investigated here in B.C., and if not, why are we not

at the forefront of innovation to expand our LNG industry to help lower global emissions?

The expansion of the LNG industry is not just a better option for our environment;

it's a pathway to prosperity for our communities and, without a doubt, a proven economic

reconciliation action item for First Nations. We must take every opportunity we can

to advance this industry in our province, whether it's pursuing emission reduction

credits or building the right infrastructure to support LNG projects.

I urge this House to start taking this seriously. There is a void in energy around

the globe, and B.C. has a moral responsibility to fulfil this.

[10:15 a.m.]

R. Russell: I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I will start with three different

comments.

One is a quote from last month by Dr. Zeke Hausfather. "The first global temperature

data is in for the full month of September. This month was, in my professional opinion

as a climate scientist, absolutely gobsmackingly bananas. JRA-55 beat the prior monthly

record by over 0.5 degrees Celsius and was around 1.8 degrees Celsius warmer than

pre-industrial levels."

Second point. In my conversations around British Columbia, meeting with community

leaders, with local government leaders, Indigenous communities and their leaders,

they're grateful for the economic pulse into their communities that oil and gas has

provided, but they wish that they had been better prepared for the underestimated

burden they've been suffering with their health care resources, with their ground

infrastructure and their housing.

Three. In 2021, there was $18.4 trillion globally in assets under management — that

is, money that people have invested and wanted to see dedicated — that is tied specifically

to funds that are committed to well-governed, environmentally friendly and socially

responsible investments. There is an enormous amount of funding available for investment

in opportunities that are aligned with environmental health, socially responsible

behaviour and good governance.

I think it's important to iterate here there is simply no time to waste in tackling

the challenge that we're dealing with in climate change. The costs of inaction, which

we have seen in the past, are enormous economically as well as socially. The threat

of climate change is not decades or even years away. It's not a future what-if. The

impacts are all around us, from floods and wildfires to heat waves and droughts.

The member brings this statement forward, perhaps unknowingly, slightly after the

two-year anniversary of the atmospheric river event that devastated so many British

Columbians. In the same year — of course, this year — we have seen, as the CBC has

said: "The 2023 wildfire season is now officially the most expensive and the most

destructive on record." Again, the costs of inaction, not just environmentally but

socially and economically, are enormous.

Then the third point. To build on that a little more, I will also share a quote from

the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, Dariush Yazdani and Olwyn Alexander,

who said:

"Spurred on by recent landmark legislation that commits $390 billion U.S. to fight

climate change, the overall direction of travel among U.S. investors is clear, even

if the complexion of administrations changes and some state governments continue to

push back on ESG…. Nearly eight in ten institutional investors plan to increase their

allocations to ESG products over the next two years. What's more, nearly nine in ten

have either already rejected or stopped investing with a specific asset manager or

would consider doing so due to shortcomings in the manager’s ESG investment strategies."

And importantly:

"Three-quarters of institutional investors in our survey believe that ESG is now part

of their fiduciary duty."

This is significant because it means that investments into a greener future are now

not only becoming the norm, but they are also now becoming recognized by investment

managers as a fiduciary duty, as their obligation. So the business case for oil does

not look good. Betting our planet, our economy and the future on carbon capture and

technology to save us is risky.

Coming back again to that first statement, "absolutely gobsmackingly bananas," this

is a temperature increase more than half a degree higher than what we have seen on

record in the past. This is dramatic. This is driven by a change in terms of El Niño

— La Niña as well — which is natural but also clearly the outcome of global emissions.

We have a huge opportunity in B.C., with mining and critical minerals, with agriculture

and regenerative agriculture practices, with forestry, a sustainable industry, mass

timber, with energy in terms of investments that we've seen in battery technology

and hydrogen.

[10:20 a.m.]

There are trillions of dollars on the table, and opportunities like B.C.'s are here

to be able to seize that and build those good jobs, build a healthy future for what

we expect to see in B.C., to make our province stronger and to help British Columbians

socially, environmentally and economically, now and in generations to come.

E. Ross: I thank the member for their comments. I think he proved my point. Although it's contradictory

to what this government actually approved, LNG Canada, phase 1, is actually going

to create a tremendous amount of emissions just because they can't access electricity.

There's an outside chance that phase 2, with 14 million additional tonnes, will actually

produce double the emissions if the infrastructure is not there. So I agree that there

is a global challenge, but the key word is "global." What are we doing to ensure that

clean, ethical LNG comes from B.C. to those countries that truly need it, that can't

access clean energy? We haven't done much.

A lot of what we're doing now is playing catch-up. The United States has beaten us

to the punch even though we started well before them — and Australia, Saudi Arabia.

All we've got is one half of one project to provide a clean, ethical energy source

to places like Japan and China. That's all we've got.

Given our capacity, our massive natural gas resources in the Peace that we can't access….

We can't get the tidewater because of so many regulations, policies and legislation

that restrict us. There is a moral commitment to help out countries like Japan and

China, because regardless of what we do, they're going to get energy, whether it be

coal, diesel or any other kind of dirty fuel. We're sitting on top of massive LNG

reserves, but for one reason or another, we don't want to talk about how we get these

massive gas reserves to Asia. Japan came here begging for an LNG agreement. They left

with nothing.

Right now, we've got a proposal coming from Alberta, of all places — Alberta — to

ship ammonia from Alberta to Prince Rupert to export to Japan, because Japan is shifting

towards using ammonia as an energy source, as a low-emission energy source. The only

thing we need now is two levels of government to indemnify the railway line in the

same manner that you indemnify oil and gas products being shipped by rail. That's

all we'd really need.

The world is actually transitioning to cleaner fuels in their transition to an emissions-free

future. Here in B.C., we are failing, and it's intentional. We are intentionally failing,

and we've got to change that. This is why I urge the House to truly consider our role

in reducing global emissions.

INVESTING IN TOMORROW

B. D’Eith: When I think about investing in tomorrow, I can't help but think about the incredible

things the government has done over the last six years to prepare British Columbia

for the new economy, whether that's in tech, whether that's in life sciences, whether

that's in biomanufacturing, agriculture and agritech, quantum computing or clean energy.

For example, the new InBC Investment Corp. is a strategic investment fund created

by the province of British Columbia with $500 million to invest in growing companies

and venture funds to benefit British Columbia. Now, this has a triple-bottom-line

mandate to invest for financial profit as well as social and environmental impacts.

It's currently investing in growing, innovative companies looking for an equity investment,

and this means keeping B.C. innovation and companies who want to scale up here in

British Columbia, as opposed to leaving the province.

[10:25 a.m.]

Last week, InBC invested $4 million in 4ag Robotics, which was formerly TechBrew Robotics,

$5 million in Clarius Mobile Health, and previously invested $10 million in Amplitude

Ventures Fund II and $10 million in Pender Technology Inflection Fund, venture funds

supporting B.C.-based companies. This is really exciting.

Last week, the government announced provincial funding of $16.47 million in HTEC's

B.C. pilot hydrogen truck project. This project aims to tackle decarbonization challenges

facing B.C.'s commercial transportation sector by procuring and piloting six different

heavy-duty hydrogen fuel cell trucks. It includes upgrading filling stations and maintenance

facilities as well. This pilot project hopes to kick-start the use of low-carbon hydrogen

in commercial trucking — really exciting work.

This also builds on the exciting investments from last May, if members remember, in

AbCellera. The governments of Canada and British Columbia are investing in a made-in-B.C.

anchor company to expand Vancouver's investment and solve global health care challenges,

while creating hundreds of new high-paying jobs.

But, of course, this exciting sustainable economy is going to need a lot of skilled

workers. In fact, it's estimated that the province is going to need over one million

new workers, and many of those are going to require post-secondary and trades training.

That's why the StrongerBC future-ready action plan is being put into action to meet

the challenges that we have today and also make sure that we're ready to succeed and

grow the economy into the future.

We've invested over $100 million a year into trades education through SkilledTradesBC.

SkilledTradesBC manages nearly 90 trades programs in B.C., from carpenters to electricians

to plumbers, 40 of which are red seal programs. The province has also invested in

new trade facilities at Okanagan College, Selkirk, North Island and in the Nicola

Valley Institute of Technology. Also, a new trades training building is being built

at BCIT that will benefit 12,000 students who will benefit from that. And also, the

Vancouver Community College centre for clean energy and automotive innovation — $271

million in provincial funding.

Now, on the technology front, more students are getting access to in-demand programs,

with more than 3,000 seats with technology-relevant spaces for post-secondary. These

will range from cybersecurity, software engineering, data sciences, life sciences,

creative tech, clean tech, and agritech — all the things we're talking about, about

the future. These are all part, again, of the future-ready program.

Of course, in addition to all this, we need apprentices. Apprentices are a great way

to build our skilled workforce for the future. November is Apprenticeship Recognition

Month. This is an opportunity to really celebrate the hard-working apprentices and

employers who are working in this program. In fact, there are 41,000 registered apprenticeships,

over 10,000 youth program participants and nearly 4,800 foundation students in B.C.

It's important to note that 10 percent of these apprentices are women, and 8.5 percent

of these apprentices are Indigenous, as of September 23.

We know that there's a shortage of skilled labour. We, in fact, expect approximately

83,000 job openings in the B.C. trades through to 2032. So it's very, very important

that we do this work. But training takes time.

It's also very important to acknowledge that there are a lot of people coming from

other countries who have skills and who need those credentials to be recognized. For

far too long, the recognition process has taken too long for folks who are coming

in, and we need people now. That's why the International Credentials Recognition Act

is being put in to remove unfair barriers, increase transparency and streamline this

international training — so important to move forward.

We're continuing to diversify our economy by embracing new technologies in traditional

industries like forestry, with mass timber, or agriculture, with agritech, or mining,

with a circular economy, or recycling and new, cleaner practices. Growing these new

industries is so important, because we need to move towards a clean energy future.

We need to look at the challenges that the pandemic brought us, for example, in life

sciences. We need to make transformative changes in things like quantum computing

and be a leader in those things. The StrongerBC plan is setting the stage for this

so that B.C. can in fact be a world leader in so many of these different areas.

[10:30 a.m.]

I'm really excited about the future of British Columbia, the new economy and the things

that we need to do and are doing to make sure that we're investing in all of the important

technology and quantum computing and agritech and all of those things that will be

our future, in order that we can diversify and continue to diversify our economy into

the future.

P. Milobar: I'm happy to rise to speak to the statement on investing in tomorrow. I would just

point out a couple of observations from the member opposite's speech there.

It was interesting to me that it started with InBC, which is that high-risk venture

capital scheme the government created a few years ago. We're about three years down

the road now with that high-risk venture capital scheme. It's good to hear there has

finally been what sounds like about $29 million worth of investment finally out the

door after three years of several hundreds of thousands of dollars a year going to

pay for the administration of a fund that had yet to make investments.

But fundamentally, we absolutely need to be looking about tomorrow and investing in

tomorrow and the jobs that are needed. Unfortunately, what we've seen over the last

six to seven years is that for every five public sector jobs that have been created,

we've only seen one private sector job created. There does need to be the ability

for the private sector to radically get on board with the economy again in British

Columbia, and that has been lacking.

So when you look at the CleanBC scheme that has currently been marketed by this government

over the last seven years, I would suggest to the members opposite that they actually

read into some of their own government documents that show actually what is slated

to happen under that CleanBC scheme between now and 2030.

At full implementation, what we will see…. This is work by two highly respected economists

in British Columbia, Ken Peacock and Jock Finlayson, working directly off government

documents, not creating their own documents, not creating their own algorithms of

looking at information — but, literally, government documents publicly available on

government websites, which very clearly show a shrinking of the provincial economy

to the tune of $28.6 billion a year and a loss of $11,000 per year on household incomes

to British Columbians. That's a significant hit.

It also shows a net loss of almost a quarter-million jobs in British Columbia. So

when the member talks about forestry and mining, actually, the CleanBC scheme is slated

to remove net close to 10,000 jobs in forestry and mining. It will remove over 20,000

jobs in the transportation sector. It will remove almost 15,000 jobs in other sectors,

as well, around forestry, around resources. That is critical, because that affects

large geographic areas of our province. It also impacts the financial areas in and

around the Lower Mainland and the large corporations that work and base themselves

out of Vancouver.

So if we're looking to the future, we have to look at the net, and we have to look

at the government policies in regard to whether or not they're actually truly helping

to invigorate an economy. You can't simply say: "We've invested in one aspect of it,

so everything's fine, and we're looking forward to tomorrow." You need to make sure

that as a government, there are those investments being made and policy being developed

that will not only protect and see emissions drive down but actually see employment

ramp up.

Unfortunately, under the CleanBC scheme, what has become very apparent — again, with

government's own documents and government's own information, which they have collected,

that they seem to be either wilfully turning a blind eye to or ignoring — is that

we will see the opposite. We will see an incredible drag on our economy. We will see

emissions continuing to rise, as we've seen over the last seven years in British Columbia.

The net result is that if you're lucky enough to keep your job, you will see a household

income drop of $11,000 a year. And if you're not lucky enough to keep your job, that

means you're one of the almost a quarter-million people in this province that will

find themselves out of work due directly to failed policies and a reliance on not

trying to adapt and make sure we're actually being innovative.

[10:35 a.m.]

Probably the best example of that is the start of the member opposite's comments,

when he talked about the InBC high-risk venture capital scheme. The fact that it took

government almost three years, from the time they announced this high-risk venture

capital scheme to actually start to invest in projects, tells you that there is not

the significant urgency to develop a way forward for the future of tomorrow in British

Columbia.

That is a problem, Madam Chair. Thank you for the time.

B. D’Eith: It was an incredible week last week in Maple Ridge.

We heard from TransLink that Maple Ridge has been selected for the first of the three

rapid transit bus projects that are being developed. This is exciting new technology

that will link Maple Ridge to the new Langley SkyTrain station.

I really want to take a moment to thank Mayor Ruimy and council for advocating to

the Mayors' Council and TransLink to get this amazing announcement, creating lasting

and transformative change for the future of our region.

I can't talk about investing in the future without talking about the biggest investment

in Maple Ridge history. It's incredibly exciting. It's dealing with innovative clean

energy manufacturing.

There was a huge announcement last week, with the Prime Minister and the Premier in

Moli, a global leader in clean technology, and to bring manufacturing to British Columbia.

Now, for decades, E-One Moli has been operating an R and D facility in Maple Ridge.

It's incredible how this tiny Canadian battery lab from the 1980s has become a central

global player in the lithium battery development race.

It has been this company's dream to bring battery manufacturing to Canada. Now, with

this announcement, E-One Moli will fulfil this dream and bring innovative lithium

ion battery cell production to Maple Ridge, creating over 450 highly skilled jobs

and helping to grow the province's green economy and provide sustainable employment

for B.C.

This is a $1 billion partnership. It is another example of how we're leveraging B.C.'s

strengths to build a stronger, cleaner, more inclusive economy with quality jobs for

people so they can live good, secure lives in communities they call home. With a strong

mining sector that supplies critical minerals needed for this clean economy, these

types of innovative companies can continue to work on this clean energy solution.

E-One Moli will establish western Canada's first high-performance lithium ion battery

cell manufacturing facility, creating a new hub in North America for this battery

component supply chain. This builds on the Stronger B.C. economic plan around clean

growth and supports our CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 in transitioning to a cleaner economy.

Through partnerships like this, B.C. and Maple Ridge are demonstrating that we are

open for business. That is why companies are choosing our province as an attractive

place to invest, anchor, create jobs and set down roots with their families.

Through the Stronger B.C. economic plan, we're building a stronger and cleaner economy

that will work for the people of today and the future. We're going to make sure that

people have the skills that they need to keep our businesses and our province strong

moving forward.

VALUE OF A VIBRANT

PRIVATE JOBS SECTOR

M. de Jong: Speaking of last week, I was in my car driving across the Mission bridge, over to

the Save-on-Foods store, to pick up my dozen eggs. I'm driving my 35-year-old car,

my 1980s car, listening to my 1970s music. I hit the button on my eight-track, and

who should come on but Joni Mitchell?

The song is "Big Yellow Taxi." It was released in the early '70s. It might have been

1970. If they released it today, it would be "Big Black Uber," right? Times have changed.

There's a famous line in the song — it became kind of an anthem for the ecological

movement that was developing — about paving paradise and putting up a parking lot.

That's not the line, actually, that got my attention. There's a line just before or

just after that where she sings: "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what

you've got till it's gone?"

[10:40 a.m.]

You don't know what you've got till it's gone. That got me thinking about something

that's been bothering me. Happily, I have the privilege to come in here, express my

concerns and get a few things off my chest. That's this notion of the importance and

the power of a strong private sector economy and private sector job creation.

I think we're losing the narrative. I have to say this in the short time available

to me today. I have this belief, and if people fundamentally disagree with this belief

or this bias, they're not going to like what I have to say, but it is this. Government

has, largely, three priorities: one, to preserve public safety, protect members of

the public; two, to look after those who are not in a position to look after themselves;

and then thirdly, to create a climate in which people can come here — people, businesses

— invest and create opportunity.

I confess that that is rooted in the belief that it is ultimately the private sector

that will generate the wealth that will flow through to people and, eventually, the

government, to allow government to address those three priorities. But there seems

to be a growing notion, at least in some quarters in this House, that the engine that's

going to drive the economy is government itself. I'm concerned about that, because

from where I sit and from what I've seen in the past, it doesn't work.

When we look at the numbers that we have seen, I think, over the course of the last

three or four years, we've seen somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000, 24,000 private

sector jobs created. We've seen a lot more created in the public sector. Compared

to a five-year period between 2012 and 2017, it went upwards of a quarter-million

private sector jobs were created, and generated wealth that governments could put

to work addressing the three priority areas that I mentioned.

What we're seeing is not sustainable, and I'm worried about where all this is going

to lead. We're now, as the private sector…. When we look at the projects — the marquee

projects that have employed thousands of people — whether it's a Site C energy project,

an LNG energy project, an energy transmission project….. These are significant job

creation projects. They're ones that the present government inherited; in most cases,

spoke in opposition to. But what's coming next? What's coming after those projects?

Where is that private sector job creation going to come?

If we look at the last three or four years as any indication, it looks rather bleak.

At the end of the day, people are going to pay a price for that. The Finance Minister

says we're looking at a deficit this year of $6.5 billion. We haven't seen anything

like that.

There was a time when I sat in government, and after 2008, we ran some deficits. The

world economy faltered badly, and to sustain services, we borrowed money, but we then

paid that money back. By the time we got to 2017, and then later, to COVID, British

Columbia could boast a strong economy and a strong set of books, but where are we

going to be when the next global cataclysm hits?

[10:45 a.m.]

The unwillingness to address that fundamental question of generating private sector

investment, private sector jobs and the wealth that goes with it and, instead, simply

running massive governmental deficits, at the end of the day, strikes me — and I'll

say this — as a selfish way to govern. Because the people that are making those decisions

and taking the credit for expending those billions of dollars that we don't have know

one thing. They won't be here to clean up the mess. That'll be left to someone else.

The equation is out of balance right now, and I'm not optimistic that we'll see that

imbalance redressed. But I am pleased to have been able to take advantage of the opportunity

to point out my concern in this chamber on this day.

R. Parmar: Thanks to the member for Abbotsford West for his comments this morning.

Thank you for making me feel so young. I am looking forward to googling who Joni Mitchell

is after these comments.

I would add that maybe the member for Abbotsford West and I could create a shared

Spotify playlist. I think people would appreciate two generations coming together.

Interjection.

R. Parmar: I'm happy to send some information to the member about Spotify or Apple Music or whatever

he may choose to use.

Thanks so much for the opportunity to be able to rise and talk about the value of

the private sector. I want to start by thanking the member across for sharing his

perspectives, for sharing the perspectives of the priorities that he sees in the role

of government.

I tend to agree with him. It is the role of government to protect people. You protect

people and you make sure that you provide the services people need, and you create

an investment climate that leads to private sector jobs being created. Certainly,

my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission talked about the billion-dollar investment that

was announced in his community last week.

The issue that I take with the comments across the way from the B.C. United is this

characterization that public sector jobs don't matter. What I would add, and the belief

that I carry in this House and the belief that I carry in my community, is that a

strong public sector leads to an even stronger private sector. That's a belief that

I have.

I would add that we certainly had a time when another party sat on this side of the

House where they had a different belief, where public sector jobs were gutted. I only

have to look to my own family and the impact that that had, as a son of immigrants

who came here and became health care workers and were laid off and their jobs privatized,

and the impact that that had on me personally and so many families.

The value of private sector jobs comes with a strong investment in public sector jobs.

It makes sure that we're hiring more teachers, makes sure we're hiring more doctors

and nurses. This government, the government that I'm proud to be a member of, is unapologetic

of the fact that we've been making record investments in the services that people

need each and every day, and we're going to continue to do that as long as we sit

on this side of the House.

At the same time, we're going to continue to make investments to ensure that British

Columbia is a place worth investing in. Again, the member from Maple Ridge talked

about a billion-dollar investment announced in his community last week. We only have

to look a few months ago to another substantive investment in Vancouver, AbCellera,

a life sciences company, with the support of the provincial and federal government,

which is going to be creating hundreds of jobs, hundreds of good-paying jobs in Vancouver.

Again, another investment with the support of our government is the B.C. manufacturing

jobs plan, which has led to millions of dollars being spent in partnership with the

private sector to create good-paying jobs.

It requires government working with the private sector to be able to create those

jobs. It requires creating an atmosphere, an investment climate that leads to the

private sector wanting to make those investments. We've had that track record in this

government.

In October, as part of the labour force survey results coming out, we saw 23,400 full-time

jobs added, with over half of those jobs coming from the construction sector. That's

fantastic news for communities like Langford–Juan de Fuca, where we've got a strong

construction sector with people working and building housing, working and building

public services. Also, important infrastructure that we all rely on to keep us moving

will also be leading to new private sector jobs.

[10:50 a.m.]

I'll just quickly highlight that for Langford this year — the last couple of years,

in fact, since the pandemic, have been record years for small business start-ups.

That's something I know that the mayor and council are very proud of, the community

is very proud of. The community is supporting those small businesses.

It is so important that when we talk about creating a strong economy, when we talk

about investing in our communities, we also talk about the value of public sector

jobs. I certainly hope that when the member for Abbotsford West gets up, he talks

about the value of those public sector jobs and how a strong public sector economy

will turn into an even stronger private sector economy.

M. de Jong: I begin by alerting the hon. member…. I just got a telex message telling me that Counting

Crows did a remake on "Big Yellow Taxi." The song has lurched its way into his playlist

one way or another.

Look, I don't think anyone is going to quarrel — least of all me — with the importance

of the work undertaken by folks in the public sector in delivering on all of those

three objectives that I mentioned. But it does behoove us, I believe, to ask a couple

of fundamental questions or at least acknowledge a couple of fundamental things. That

is: they have to be paid. They don't work for free.

Where does the money come from to pay those dedicated public sector workers and to

provide those important public sector services? That money comes from wealth generated

by a vibrant private sector economy.

We hear this — I certainly do — and I accept the importance of looking after people,

particularly vulnerable people who need some assistance. But I say that obligation

doesn't just exist today. That obligation exists in perpetuity. If a government, at

any particular time, takes steps that compromise the ability of future governments

and future societies to address those objectives and those priorities, then that government

is doing a disservice. And I fear that is what is taking place.

Look, it is way more popular and way more fun to say yes and write a cheque. But when

the temptation to do that takes over to a degree that leads to what we are now seeing,

which is ongoing, perpetual multi-billion-dollar deficits, the ability that future

societies and future governments are going to have to deliver on those objectives

is most assuredly being compromised. It won't be anyone in this chamber that has to

pay that price, and that's why I think it's selfish. Convenient in the short term?

Probably. But, ultimately, not very visionary.

But that is a debate, I expect, that will go on for some time and, certainly, through

the next months leading up to the next electoral contest.

T. Halford: I seek leave to make a quick introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

T. Halford: We are joined in this House by a very important constituent of mine, somebody who's

ultimately responsible for me being here today, in every way. That constituent is

my mom. It's her first time that she's been here today.

Welcome, Mom. I look forward to spending the day with you.

Debate Continued

WORKER WELL-BEING

K. Greene: I'm pleased to be speaking today from lək̓ʷəŋən territory. That is the nations of

the Songhees and Esquimalt. It's always a privilege to be here.

[10:55 a.m.]

All workers in B.C. should have a safe and fair workplace so that they can have a

good life and support their loved ones. Our government is taking action to support

worker health and safety, improve fair workplace standards and instate meaningful

protections for vulnerable workers.

Every worker should come home safe at the end of their shift, but protections for

workers fell short of what was needed, so our government stepped up. Can you believe

that before 2017 children as young as 12 could be allowed to do practically any kind

of job? As a mother and a human being, it's, quite frankly, appalling that B.C. was

so far behind international standards for child employment. We had to take action.

In 2019, legislative changes raised the general working age from 12 to 16, and this

was followed by regulations defining light work that's appropriate for those under

16. In this province, you must now be at least 18 for jobs such as logging, oil drilling

or work in smelters. It kind of sounds like a no-brainer. Young workers are, tragically,

more likely to be injured or killed in the workplace, and setting these standards

ensures that kids are kept out of workplaces that are dangerous for them.

Asbestos can be deadly, and workers needed better protections to avoid permanent injury

or death as a result of their work in abatement. We amended the Workers Compensation

Act, so asbestos abatement contractors who operate in B.C. must be licensed by January

1, 2024, and asbestos abatement workers and others complete mandatory asbestos safety

training. B.C. will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to implement a licensing requirement,

and I hope, on behalf of all workers in this industry, that we are not the last.

Firefighters put their health and lives on the line to keep us all safe, and we need

to better support them and, by extension, their families if they are faced with a

cancer diagnosis.

In recognition of the higher risk of work-related cancers among firefighters, the

province amended the Firefighters' Occupational Disease Regulation under the Workers

Compensation Act by adding five cancers to the list of the existing 13 cancers that

firefighters are at risk of developing. We added ovarian, cervical, penile, pancreatic

and thyroid. These changes streamline access to workers compensation benefits for

firefighters, eliminating the stress of proving that the listed cancers are work-related.

Health and safety considerations are also intersectional, which means that we consider

the multifaceted impacts of identity, like religion or gender. In 2021, our government

announced that WorkSafeBC was implementing changes to B.C.'s Occupational Health and

Safety Regulation, requiring employers to conduct risk assessments for workplaces

when considering the need for safety headgear, while ensuring that turban-wearing

Sikhs will be able to participate more fully in the workforce.

Adequate toilet facilities are also a barrier to employment in the trades, and the

Premier recently announced that flush toilets will be required on job sites with 25

workers or more. Better sanitation will improve worker health but also, and very importantly,

remove a barrier for people who menstruate. Messy portable chemical toilets and inadequate

hand-cleaning stations kept menstruating people from pursuing or remaining in the

trades, because these conditions are inadequate to meeting their basic biological

needs.

Keeping workers safe doesn't just mean protecting their physical well-being. In 2019,

we expanded the mental health presumption to include nurses, emergency dispatchers

and publicly funded health care aides, and we'll review criteria to add other occupations

in the future. The mental health presumption recognizes that people in these occupations

care for us on some of our worst days and can need mental health care as a result

of the work they do.

Workers who have had a workplace injury shouldn't find barriers to returning to work.

Starting January 1 of 2024, new requirements under the Workers Compensation Act in

British Columbia will require employers and injured workers to cooperate with WorkSafeBC

to facilitate the injured workers' return to their workplace, either in a pre-injury

job, a comparable position or other suitable work. Employers will be required to make

necessary changes to the work or workplace to accommodate that worker.

This year our government announced nearly $12 million in funding for the employment

standards branch over three years. This will provide for as many as 33 additional

full-time employees to be hired to meet the growing demand for the branch's services.

[11:00 a.m.]

Increasing ESB staff is important, but so is improving the way that it provides services.

To that end, we've begun modernizing the employment standards branch so that workers

in British Columbia have the supports they need while giving the branch the tools

to track, investigate and penalize employers who don't comply.

We've also made it easier for workers to get help when their rights have been violated

by eliminating the self-help kit, which was identified as a significant barrier to

accessing assistance from ESB.

Under our government, WorkSafe has hired more prevention and investigations officers,

stepping up inspections and issuing more citations, fines and penalties. We all want

workplaces to be safe for workers. Preventing unsafe working conditions, and imposing

consequences for violating safe workplace rules, is an important piece of the puzzle

to protect workers. Worker well-being isn't just one thing. It is a collection of

actions that together lift up the dignity, health and safety of workers in British

Columbia.

Our government puts people first. People build this province to be a better place

to live, work, learn and play every single day, and we owe it to them, to all of us,

to make sure that we have their backs.

G. Kyllo: I'm pleased to rise in the House today and speak on the importance of worker well-being

in British Columbia, and I thank the member opposite for bringing forward this topic

for discussion here today.

Workers are essential to growing our province, as they build our homes, take care

of our loved ones in hospitals and educate our children. We must ensure that the government

provides support to ensure the well-being of workers and to unleash the potential

of our workforce.

We need workers more than ever in our province. As our population continues to grow,

the demand for critical infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and housing is surging,

but concerningly, we are failing to meet that demand. Equally concerning is the reality

that most B.C. major infrastructure projects across the province continue to go over

budget and are subjected to significant delays.

A key factor in these delays is the so-called community benefits agreements that dictate

the terms of these projects and the fact that they exclude workers, contractors and

Indigenous businesses that want to be involved. They want to be working, earning a

paycheque and benefiting their communities, but the CBAs restrict anyone who is not

a member of one of the government's supported unions —discrimination.

It's important to realize that workers are consumers, too, and life in B.C. has never

been more unaffordable. The cost-of-living crisis in B.C. continues to hit workers

and people everywhere that are feeling the pinch. Everyday errands like buying groceries

and filling your car with gas are met with shock and frustration as prices continue

to climb. Half of British Columbians are $200 or less away from not being able to

pay their bills at the end of each month. We've seen nearly a 60 percent increase

in food bank use, with 62,000 children relying on food banks monthly.

British Columbia has the highest rents in Canada and the most expensive housing in

North America. People are living paycheque to paycheque and struggling to keep up

as their real income drops and essential costs soar. The growing costs and the blizzard

of new taxes affect workers across B.C., no matter the field of work or corner of

the province they live in. The number one way that we can support our workers and

raise their well-being is by making life less expensive.

People across B.C. need to drive to get to and from work, whether it's commuting downtown

to an hour-long drive to their worksite. A vehicle is a necessity in many parts of

British Columbia. Especially in my riding of Shuswap and rural parts of the province,

British Columbians do not have the same options in transit that are accessible to

those in Metro Vancouver. Many jobs require reliable methods of transportation, and

in these communities, their only option is a personal vehicle.

Right now British Columbia has the highest gas prices and taxes in North America.

The pain at the pump is hurting British Columbians, as many families have to choose

between filling up their tanks or putting food on the table for their kids. Eliminating

the provincial fuel tax is one way this government could support the well-being of

workers, a tangible way to reduce not only the cost of gas but also groceries and

all goods transported by truck.

Another way to support workers in B.C. is to create more jobs — the best way to protect

workers and ensure that they have jobs to go to each and every day. Private sector

job creation has completely flatlined over the last seven years, and investment in

our province has all but dried up.

We must build a growing and prosperous economy that creates good-paying jobs across

the province for workers in all sectors. A strong economy allows us to invest in the

social services to support individuals, families and communities in need.

[11:05 a.m.]

The member opposite shared about the investments in the employment standards branch.

Well, the employment standards branch has been an absolute failure under this current

government. Wait times in 2017 were two months. A private sector worker that may be

jilted or have an argument or complaint with their employee would reach out to the

employment services branch. The wait time in 2017 was two months. That wait-list,

that wait time, that backlog, has now grown to over 16 months — 16 months.

Is that disrespectful? Is that supporting workers by requiring a worker to wait as

much as 16 months before their claim is even heard by the employment standards branch?

Far too little, far too late. Supporting the well-being of workers is very important,

as we need to ensure to build a strong economy and a strong future for both our children

and our grandchildren.

I hope everyone in this House can recognize the strength our workers provide to our

economy and that we need to be investing all that we can to ensure that we have a

prosperous province where workers can afford to live.

K. Greene: Our government has done so much to ensure that workers have access to fair and safe

workplaces. Vulnerable workers have needed us to have their backs, and we have.

Did you know that most minimum-wage earners are women, and many of those have dependent

children? Minimum-wage earners are also more likely to be racialized. Workers' intersecting

identities contribute very much to the type of work they can access and their wage.

We've raised minimum wage every year since 2017, lifting up women and children. Our

province now has a minimum wage of $16.75 per hour so that workers are not left behind.

We've also phased out the discriminatory liquor-server wage, which affected mostly

women. Women reported being vulnerable to harassment and assault due to their dependence

on customer tips. Having a fair minimum wage improves their economic and personal

security.

Women still earn substantially less than men, with Indigenous and racialized women

experiencing the largest pay gaps. We have brought in pay-transparency legislation

to address the gender pay gap and ensure equal pay for equal work. It will achieve

this by requiring all publicly advertised jobs in British Columbia to include transparent

wage and salary information.

Workers experiencing serious and life-altering personal circumstances should have

protected leave to return to their jobs. Up to five days per year of paid leave were

made available for employees who face domestic or sexual violence, or to parents of

a child impacted by this kind of violence, along with legislation to provide those

employees with more job protection.

In 2018, we provided longer, more flexible job-protected pregnancy and parental leaves

for people caring for a terminally ill family member or coping with the death or disappearance

of a child. People deserve to be cared for with compassion and respect when dealing

with these kinds of life events. Our government is making sure that those folks can

have peace of mind that their employment is protected while they are on their necessary

leave.

Our government is soliciting feedback on proposed solutions to enhance working conditions

for app-based ride-hailing and food delivery vehicle workers, addressing concerns

such as low and unpredictable pay, worker safety and compensation for job-related

injuries. When people work in the gig economy, workers are vulnerable to unilateral

employment decisions and substandard working conditions. App-based workers are often

racialized, or new immigrants who are facing barriers to traditional employment. We

need to make sure that we are looking after workers that need the help of a level

playing field.

There are so many more actions that this government has taken so that this province

is a place where workers are confident that they will have a good workplace and be

able to earn a fair wage. We've come a long way since 2017. Whether you're a nurse,

an electrician, a child care worker, a ride-hail driver or in any and all jobs in

between, this government has your back.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I ask the House consider proceeding with Motion 58, standing in the name of the member

for Peace River North.

[11:10 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed to Motion 58 without

disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 58 — PROVINCIAL

FUEL AND CARBON TAXES

D. Davies: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House supports permanently eliminating the provincial fuel

tax to ease the pain at the pump and removing the carbon tax on all home heating.]

After seven years, two terms of this government, life in British Columbia has never

been more expensive. People are struggling and feeling that no matter how hard they

work, they just cannot keep up with the rising costs to live here in British Columbia.

Half of all British Columbians are $200 or less away from being able to pay their

monthly bills. From gas to groceries to housing, costs continue to soar while paycheques

continue to shrink.

The NDP's middle-class squeeze has made British Columbia the least affordable province

in Canada, if not jurisdiction across the continent. B.C. is home to the highest gas

prices in all of North America. It hasn't always been this way. When the NDP government

came into power in 2017, the average cost of gas in Vancouver was $1.30 a litre, and

that price had been relatively stable for the preceding six years.

The skyrocketing prices that we are seeing today show just how affordable life has

become after the seven years and two terms of this NDP government. Far too many British

Columbians are now forced to decide between filling up their car with gas, driving

their kids to school, putting healthy food on their table or even being able to afford

a medication. We have seen nearly a 60 percent increase in food bank use, with 62,000

children relying on food banks monthly. Enough is enough. People deserve a break.

Our B.C. United caucus has spent months calling on the government to take action on

this affordability crisis and deliver results for British Columbians. Unfortunately,

the NDP has refused to take our suggestions and, as a result, has led our province

further down the path of unaffordability. That's why our B.C. United caucus put forward

a bold plan to make life more affordable, a plan that includes ending the pain at

the pumps permanently by eliminating the provincial gas tax.

People need to get to work, to school and to drive to doctors appointments. Axing

this tax will save drivers up to 15 cents a litre on gas and diesel. For the average

family in my community, that would be around 20 bucks' savings at the pump. For a

pickup, that'd be around 30 bucks. Imagine what families could do with an extra 30

bucks in their pocket every week. This will make a real difference in people's lives

immediately.

The reality is that many British Columbians need to drive to work or school or these

medical appointments. They need to take their kids to hockey practices, check in on

their parents or their grandparents, drive in to the store to get groceries.

British Columbians in rural areas do not have transit options that are accessible

to those like in Metro Vancouver or larger centres. In fact, some of these communities,

like Fort Nelson, don't even have transit options at all. Unfortunately, we seem to

be punishing those living in rural B.C.

In my riding, Peace River North, as well as in my colleague's Peace River South and

for many others across the north, we drive hours in our vehicles as a necessity. Many

people require reliable methods of transportation for their jobs, and with drastic

weather changes that occur with little notice, a personal vehicle is the only way

my constituents can get around reliably.

It's time to give the people of the Peace country a break as well as all of those

that live across British Columbia by eliminating this provincial gas tax. Not only

does this policy make filling up your vehicle cheaper, but it reduces the cost of

all goods and services that depend on gas- or diesel-powered transportation. And up

in the Peace country, all goods are trucked. Lowering these costs will help make life

more affordable across the north.

Eliminating the provincial gas tax is a tangible first step in delivering a more affordable

province for all British Columbians. We know that these savings will be directly passed

on to consumers. In fact, an independent study at the University of Calgary found

that when Alberta removed the provincial sales tax, it was fully passed on to 98 percent

of Albertans. The vast majority of people received immediate cost-of-living benefits

from this measure.

[11:15 a.m.]

But do you know what? I can't see the NDP supporting this motion. In fact, even this

weekend at their NDP Convention, a motion to provide a little bit of tax relief to

British Columbians was voted down. Shame.

At the end of the day, it is results that matter, and this plan of ours will put more

money in British Columbians' pockets, where it belongs.

M. Dykeman: Thank you to the member of the opposition for their comments. I think there are a

couple of things that we can agree on, the first one being that, no, we're not likely

to support their motion, partially because…. I mean, even their leader wouldn't support

their motion.

Secondly, it is expensive for families. We are aware of the fact that there are high

prices at the pump. We are aware of the fact that people are facing real challenges.

That's why our government is taking and has taken….

Interjection.

M. Dykeman: I know the member is not able to resist lashing out. If he waits for just a second,

I'll finish my sentence. Our government is taking consistent action to help address

the cost of living for people in British Columbia.

People in British Columbia are also really concerned about the very real costs of

the climate crisis, which we've seen here in British Columbia, with fires, floods,

droughts and extreme heat. Our focus was on reducing costs for people, taking measurable

steps for British Columbians to reduce their costs.

In listening to the member of the opposition speak to this motion, I'm absolutely

flummoxed, completely perplexed by this motion brought forward by opposition because,

quite frankly, it's either disingenuous, or it's just plain misinformed.

Further, what I think everyone in this House would really like to know is if the real

leader of the B.C. United party could please put their hand up, because it appears

quite often that the members and their leader that's identified on their flow chart

don't agree. Their thoughts don't match.

Some examples of that are that Kevin Falcon himself has said that cutting the carbon

tax….

Deputy Speaker: No names, Member. We don't use names.

M. Dykeman: Oh, sorry. The Leader of the Opposition himself….

Interjection.

M. Dykeman: Well, I agree. The opposition does do that. Those rules don't apply to opposition.

"If we eliminate the carbon tax, of course you would…see a double-digit increase of

both small business taxes and personal income taxes."

Two days later, on August 17, 2012, he wrote a letter to the editor in the Province. "Eliminating the carbon tax, as you suggest, would create a revenue shortfall of…over

$1 billion a year. We would need to raise other taxes to balance the budget, which

would mean a 15 percent increase in personal income tax…or an increase of 40 percent

or more in corporate income taxes."

Then he said that cancelling the carbon tax would be a terrible mistake. On June 28,

2012, he said: "I think cancelling the carbon tax, in my personal opinion, would be

a terrible mistake. I think that if people believe that climate change is an issue,

that the warming of the planet is an issue, the only sensible way to deal with that

is pricing carbon."

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Even if what the Leader of the Opposition said isn't enough, perhaps looking at an

example of what happened in Alberta…. They admitted that the oil companies had hiked

prices. Over ten days, "the gas price advantage Albertans have enjoyed relative to

other provinces has disappeared, and it now appears Albertans are no longer benefiting

from the tax cut…. With Alberta no longer collecting fuel taxes at the pump, Albertans

deserve to know why they are suddenly paying as much for gasoline as motorists in

Toronto when as recently as two weeks ago they were paying less."

We are taking measurable steps to lower the costs for British Columbians. In terms

of the $30 a month the member opposite mentioned, just the $500 a year from the reduced

premiums, by reducing them by an average of $500 a year, has put $41.66 back in the

pockets of British Columbians.

[11:20 a.m.]

We also saw the bold, knee-jerk reactions. "We're just going to cut this tax." Well,

we saw this plan. We saw the fire sale of land, which we're buying back today. We

saw, as Health Minister, a cut of $360 million from hospitals; as Transportation Minister,

bringing in tolls; as Finance Minister, hiking ICBC rates and the MSP.

We watched hydro rates skyrocket by 80 percent when opposition was in power. We saw

cutting services and increasing fees. So we know what happens with a bold plan by

the opposition. It costs British Columbians more.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Dykeman: I'm talking about your leader.

That's just a few examples. I appreciate the opportunity, but we'll continue taking

measurable steps to save British Columbians money.

T. Shypitka: Well, just in comment to the previous speaker, if you want to talk about the ultimate

flip-flop, we've got ministers in this Legislature right now that campaigned fully

on axing the tax of the carbon tax, and now they're doubling down. Actually, they're

tripling down, as we're going to see the carbon tax get to $170 by 2030.

But I'm enthusiastic to rise today and express my full support of the elimination

of the provincial gas tax and the removal of carbon tax on all home heating. British

Columbians continue to struggle with the cost-of-living crisis, and the NDP's introduction

of 30 new and increased taxes has not helped. It's in the billions of dollars. From

gas to groceries, from health care to housing, it is crystal clear that the NDP's

layering of billions of dollars of taxes is making affordability unachievable and

that B.C. once again stands for "bring cash" to anyone that wants to live here.

In this House, we should be doing everything we can to lower the financial pressures

people in B.C. are facing, not adding to their ever-growing costs that cause major

stress in their daily lives. If there is action we can take to reduce the burden on

B.C. families, we should take it immediately. That is why the B.C. United caucus has

proposed these commonsense initiatives that will put money back into the pockets of

British Columbians as soon as they are enacted. That includes the elimination of the

fuel tax at the pump.

Now, it is important to note that the NDP has not been accurately representing the

impacts of eliminating the provincial gas tax. Some of the members opposite have even

suggested that eliminating the tax would not result in significant savings for the

drivers. However, studies by leading economists such as the University of Calgary's

Trevor Tombe reveal just the opposite.

Professor Tombe's independent analysis demonstrated that the tax relief resulting

from the suspension of the gas tax in Alberta was "fully passed through" in both 2022

and 2023. An astounding 98 percent of Albertans experienced a cost-of-living benefit

from this tax suspension. It's not a matter of opinion, but it's a matter of fact

that is supported by data.

Eliminating this tax in B.C. will directly help people across the province. I know

many in my riding, especially those relying on trucks to navigate the snow and conduct

their businesses during the winter, would benefit significantly from the elimination

of the provincial gas tax. The savings of up to 15 cents per litre would make a tangible

difference in the daily lives and livelihoods of our constituents. It will also benefit

our small businesses.

Frequently I hear about residents in my riding — I've got a riding that's right on

the border of Alberta — who choose to drive across the border to fill up their vehicles

in Alberta because gas is sometimes almost 60 cents a litre cheaper, a huge disparity.

Just to do a quick Google search, it's a $1.37 right now in places like Calgary and

Lethbridge.

Most of the residents I speak to who tell me they go there for their gas also tell

me that they tend to end up doing a lot of shopping while they are there. This takes

business away from local owners in my community, who are suffering because British

Columbians are being forced to buy their gas where it is far more affordable.

What we are seeing is a surge in contractors coming from Alberta who compete with

local B.C. companies for construction contracts, often winning because their overhead

is lower. These contractors bring fuel with them from Alberta to B.C. for construction

projects because the cost is so much lower. They transport with them massive tanks

of gasoline, ranging from 80 to 100 gallons and more, to power their equipment, resulting

in significantly lower costs.

Now, local contractors and British Columbians lose out on work and jobs because they

can't compete with the lower costs Albertan contractors can provide. Something needs

to be done about this.

[11:25 a.m.]

Under the NDP, British Columbians boast the highest gas prices and gas taxes in North

America, putting a disproportionate burden on our residents.

Instead of this NDP government making affordability a reality for British Columbians,

they further punish the people of this province by ratcheting up climate targets to

make up for their own failures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, like, for example,

increasing the carbon intensity reduction requirement from 20 percent to 30 percent

by 2030, which came into effect January 1 of this year. This 30 percent is double

what the Canadian standard is and added about 11 cents per litre last year and adds

about 13 cents a litre this year.

Also, the carbon tax sits at $65 a tonne and adds about 31 cents per litre to the

cost of gasoline and 35 cents per litre of diesel. This makes up an additional $34

to fill an average light-duty truck. For the big trucks that deliver virtually everything

we use, it is an additional $163 to fill. Who do you think pays that cost?

The Premier plans to triple the carbon tax in the next six years, which will add another

60 cents per litre, unless, of course, he's stopped in a provincial election next

year. This will have a very negative effect for homeowners trying to heat their homes.

Simply stated….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Sims: It is my pleasure to rise today and speak on this motion. Just at the outset, so that

there is no confusion, I do not agree with the premise of this motion. At the same

time, I am very, very conscious of the struggle that families are having because of

inflation in many aspects, knowing what it's like when you get your heating bills

or when you go to fill up your car with gas.

I can tell you that when I look at the profits made by the oil companies, what I see

this motion from BCUP as is exactly that, increasing the profit for the oil companies.

This is not about helping British Columbians at the oil pump. It is not.

Just in case there's any doubt, there was a Premier in Alberta of very similar thinking

to the opposition who actually believed that if he lowered the tax or removed it,

gas prices would drop. And yes, they did — for a nanosecond. Then this is what Kenney

himself had to say, the then Premier of Alberta. Over the last ten days, "the gas

price advantage Albertans have enjoyed relative to other provinces has disappeared,

and it now appears Albertans are no longer benefiting from the tax cut." Not said

by Jinny Sims. Said by Jason Kenney, who clearly tried something, and it didn't work.

Once again we have my colleagues across the way saying they believe in climate change

and, at one time, saying that carbon pricing is the only way to move forward, and

now they're bringing forward a motion for the elimination. They keep saying that carbon

pricing doesn't work, that it hasn't helped, that it hasn't been reduced. Well, I

disagree. That premise is false as well.

B.C.'s carbon tax price has reduced greenhouse gas emissions. B.C.'s emissions are

down from 2007 despite our significant population growth since then. This is what

my colleagues often forget: population growth. People in B.C. are leading the country

in making the switch to zero-emission vehicles and heating their homes with clean

energy.

You would think that living in B.C., my colleagues across the way would more than

know and be aware of the dangers of becoming climate change deniers. We have lived

the reality of a term I'd never heard of before: "atmospheric rain." The downpouring

and the flooding and the damage it did to our infrastructure. We have seen the increase

in fires, and we know that all of that is related to climate change. I think most

of my colleagues sitting across the way would agree with me that climate change is

real.

[11:30 a.m.]

But it seems to me that recently they are trying to differentiate themselves or follow

another group of people in this room by really going against what they believe in.

There was a time, let me say…. They're the ones who brought in the carbon tax. Let

me just say what the now Leader of the Official Opposition said: "If we eliminate

the carbon tax, of course, you would have to see double-digit increase in both small

business taxes and personal income taxes."

Is that what they're wishing on the people of British Columbia right now? Also what

he said was: "I think cancelling the carbon tax, my personal opinion" — this is when

he was in government — "is that it would be a terrible mistake."

Every now and then, my opposition friends like to quote experts, though I do believe

they are allergic to science-based data on most issues. But today, I did hear them

report from an expert. A UBC energy economist, Werner Antweiler, has commented on

earlier proposals to cut the gas tax: "If the government were to reduce the fuel price

by 10 cents a litre by virtue of a tax cut, it will mean there's a significant chunk

that will go to the producers simply because they can."

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I. Paton: I am pleased to rise today and speak in favour of this motion that supports the elimination

of the provincial gas tax and seeks to provide British Columbians with the relief

they desperately need.

As the cost of living continues to skyrocket, many people across this province are

living paycheque to paycheque, with over 50 percent of British Columbians within $200

of not being able to pay their monthly bills. That is why our B.C. United caucus has

put forward a slate of bold tax reforms that will directly help people struggling

with the cost-of-living crisis. Cutting the provincial gas tax is one that could be

adopted immediately, providing results and relief to British Columbians right away.

The NDP continue to represent the impacts of eliminating the provincial gas tax, which

could save drivers up to 15 cents per litre.

Interjections.

I. Paton: In fact, the claims of the members opposite that Alberta's…

Deputy Speaker: Members.

I. Paton: …suspension of the gas tax did not benefit drivers is contradicted by analysis conducted

by prominent economists. Independent research led by University of Calgary economist

Trevor Tombe reveals that the tax relief was "fully passed through" in both 2022 and

2023. Moreover, Tome's analysis highlights that 98 percent of Albertans experienced

a tangible cost-of-living benefit from the suspension of the gas tax.

Despite these concrete findings, this government's statements continue to mislead

the public about the potential positive impacts of such a tax reduction. This is not

just about ending the pain at the pumps. It is about delivering tangible relief to

the hardworking people of British Columbia.

Just recently, the leader of B.C. United brought forward four tax policy initiatives

that will help save us tax in our fuels. Number 1 is removing the provincial fuel

tax, which will save folks 15 cents a litre. Number 2 is the home heating where the

federal government announced in the maritime provinces that they would take off the

tax on home heating fuel, and we will move forward to do the exact same thing here

in British Columbia.

Number 3 is that the cap of $30 a tonne will remain. We will not let this go to $65

a tonne or even $170 a tonne in future. The other is the reduction or elimination

of carbon tax on farm fuels that are used by our agricultural sector here in British

Columbia, including diesel, propane, gasoline and natural gas.

As we debate this crucial matter today, we must also recognize the immediate positive

impact this would have on the agricultural sector, benefiting our dedicated farmers

and ranchers across this province and those who eat their products. Permanently removing

the provincial fuel tax is not just about saving up to 15 cents per litre for individual

drivers. It would provide substantial help to our farmers.

In Delta, where vast stretches of farmland contribute to our community, this measure

holds particular importance. For our local farmers, cutting the gas tax translates

to substantial savings when filling up their machinery, reducing their operating costs.

[11:35 a.m.]

Lower costs for farmers means a reduction in the overall cost of food production,

enabling them to offer more affordable prices to British Columbians. Consider a farmer

in Delta relying on gasoline and diesel for their machinery. The elimination of the

provincial fuel tax amounts to a meaningful savings, directly impacting their bottom

line and contributing to the overall economic well-being of our agricultural community.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker…. One example is a family farming about 15 acres in Delta.

The common person would never imagine how much fuel is used by a farm. This is Guichon,

a huge potato farm in Delta, using over $400,000 a year in fuel for their 23 tractors,

12 trucks, propane skid-steers, forklifts, etc. So this is a massive benefit to the

farming community if we remove the carbon tax off the farm use of fuels.

I hope the entire House can come together in recognizing that a decision to eliminate

the gas tax is not just about numbers on a fuel receipt. It is about putting money

back into the pockets of hard-working people, including the farmers and ranchers in

British Columbia, who contribute so significantly to our province's prosperity.

H. Yao: I was going to stick to my script, but I think I might have to deviate a bit, just

so that we can actually, truly capture the discussion we have today.

For starters, I want to be clear that when it comes to carbon tax, the majority of

British Columbia will get more back than they pay. But our government understands

that due to inflation and the rise of interest rates, like people around the world,

British Columbians are facing real challenges. Those global factors are driving up

our groceries and pushing up our housing costs.

Just to lay the foundation, our government is working hard to reduce costs, like child

care — $900 a month. Cutting the ICBC rate — $500 a year. Boosting family benefits

alone, hydro costs, eliminating MSP, removing tolls, and so on and so on. Our government

is determined to reduce costs for British Columbia while still moving forward on climate

action.

We must not forget. I think one of the…. Unfortunately, when I'm listening to the

debate, we continue to seem to be forgetting about the forest fires, the floods, the

drought, the extreme heat dome, the number of lives lost, the quality of life being

devastated, people's lives being interrupted. The amount of money that has gone through

in regard to intervention and prevention, making sure the firefighters have been supported.

The amount of money that's being dumped out in order for us to help British Columbians

dealing with the environment emergencies cannot be forgotten.

We must understand that fundamentally, we're talking about reducing costs here. But

we must also understand that reducing costs is a long-term projection we need to look

into. If we had placed greater effort in the beginning, early in 2000, early 1990s,

and just made sure we continued working our way to combat against climate change,

think about how much money we could save.

I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to one of the members talking about

the importance of supporting farmers. But what about the devastating flood that we

had earlier, in 2022, which devastated multiple farms, killed thousands of livestock?

What about if we experienced another drought? Forget about even driving a tractor

over a dried-out field.

We will have a phenomenal food security challenge ahead of us. We, as a society, must

continue asking ourselves how we can make sure we're looking after our children. As

a government, we are continually looking for a long-term strategy to ensure that we

are looking for ways to place a price on pollution, to ensure that we are changing

people's behaviour and moving towards the economy of the future.

I think I want to talk about the future as well. When we have a government moving

forward, we're going to have different countries competing for future economies. That's

why our government is putting so much effort into helping us change our direction

— such as the tech sector, bio sector, bioscience — and continue finding ways to actually

move towards renewable energy sectors. It will take time to transition, and we wish

we had transitioned earlier. But we did not, and now we're playing catch-up.

If we're looking at all the devastation we're dealing with in our society right now,

we could have saved so much more money today if the previous government had invested

earlier. If we find a continuous way to help us prepare for how we can actually combat

against different forms of extreme weather events….

I want to use an example that I think my constituents can relate to when it comes

to why it's so important for us to invest early, invest now, in our climate action

plan.

[11:40 a.m.]

Look at our health care right now. Our health care is facing a lot of challenges,

yet right now our government is putting in a second medical school. It will take time

to construct. It will take time for us to recruit students. It will take time for

us to find instructors. It will take time for finding our potential future doctors,

who will have to go through residency before they can join our workforce and help

alleviate the stress we're dealing with today.

As a reminder, we must continuously understand that we are here not simply supporting

British Columbia today, but we must continue looking forward to support British Columbia

tomorrow and realizing that climate action is an important factor. British Columbia

must continue to take a leadership role in North America and around the world to lead

our global fight, to ensure that we do not leave an unnecessary deficit because we

are trying to create little cuts and means today….

We must find a way to continually ask ourselves: how can we adjust behaviours? How

can we adjust industries? How can we make sure we're not looking just to today but

to tomorrow, to ensure that British Columbians cannot just capture the economy of

today but that we will have an environment, have a community? We will have full security,

water security, so that we still can enjoy today but that we don't lose track of tomorrow.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on this motion today.

T. Halford: I rise, and I support this motion put forward by my colleague from Peace River North.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this.

A few weeks ago, I shared the story in the House about a constituent of mine who is

now sleeping in her car with her daughter, due to a lack of housing in the constituency

of Surrey–White Rock. One of the major challenges she has is, obviously, on affordability.

We now live in a society where this has somewhat become the norm, and we're here,

after two terms of NDP government, where we have an affordability crisis that in the

history of our province has never been worse than it is today.

People are hurting today. One of my colleagues shared the story about going across

the provincial border into Alberta to get gas and cheaper groceries. Now, I live in

South Surrey, and I can tell you that right now, every single day, the Peace Arch

border and the truck crossing is lined up with British Columbia licence plates to

go get gas in Blaine or to go get groceries in Blaine or Bellingham. That's happening

every single day.

Interjection.

T. Halford: And in Point Roberts, as my colleague points out. That's every single day.

We put forward a solution that people have been calling for and that we've been calling

for, for quite a while in this House. It's a solution that will save people money

in real time. It can be dismissed. Whether $25 or $30 a week, for a lot of people

in my riding, for that lady that's now sleeping in her car with her daughter, that's

being able to have dinner that night. That's what we're talking about.

When we're talking about taking the tax off home heating, for many of these families

— families that are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills, 200 bucks —

I think that's pretty important stuff that we're talking about here today.

Now, we talk about a carbon tax and all. I know there are people here that campaigned

against the carbon tax in 2009. Then things changed, and that carbon tax was revenue-neutral.

People can laugh. I remember, because I worked here for a period of time, that the

Minister of Health made a speech at UBCM. He talked about the carbon tax and about

the importance of making sure that that went to, I think, environmentally friendly

infrastructure. That goes into general revenues now. It was a good speech; I give

him that.

[11:45 a.m.]

You know what? I think things evolve, but I think that when the Minister of Health

made that speech, we certainly weren't in the affordability crisis we are now. I think

when he made that speech, gas was — I've got it here — maybe a buck 15, maybe even

a little bit less than that.

Interjection.

T. Halford: We see it now. As somebody says, we've been having challenges in this province, when

it comes to affordability, for a few years now.

Now we're at a crippling rate. We see it every day when people get their bills or

when people go to the pump. Those gas prices aren’t just inflicted when you fill up

your car. As my colleague from Delta points out, they're inflicted when you go to

the grocery store.

It's everywhere. It's when you get your restaurant bill — if you can afford to go

to a restaurant at this point, which many people just can't — or when you go and you

buy your produce for that restaurant. It's all there. That relief helps everybody.

I appreciate the importance of speaking out. I'm disappointed that we saw over the

weekend that the NDP chose to double and to triple down on a tax. Only in NDP land

can you see taxes going up and emissions going up, and somehow that makes sense to

them. That all seems to calculate out. You wouldn't hire any of them as accountants,

because that math does not work, but in their view, that's economics.

I want to thank Mr. Speaker for the time to speak to this important issue today.

A. Singh: This really doesn't warrant a response in this day and age, especially in a British

Columbia after years of climate emergencies. They choose to ignore the Ukraine War,

COVID. Let's just listen to Trevor Tombe, a University of Calgary economist who also

happens to be in the Fraser Institute — not partisan at all.

Let me point him to the largest statement of economists in history ever signed in

support of the carbon tax and in support of fuel taxes — you'll find it in the Wall Street Journal , in 2019 — 3,649 U.S. economists. There were four former chairs of the Federal Reserve,

28 Nobel laureates, 15 former chairs of Council of Economic Advisers— but they know

better.

Anyway, life is hard. We understand that. Life is hard with high prices at the pump.

My friend talked about the pump. There have been lineups at the border ever since

I moved here in December 1988. I've seen those lineups. I see people go across the

border. That anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing. What does mean something

is 3,649 U.S. economists signing on to statements like this.

We understand that life is hard. Prices at the pump impact families. These spikes

in the cost of living have made it difficult for many families and many households

to make ends meet. So many families are facing real challenges. Global inflation has

driven up the cost of groceries. High interest rates are pushing up housing costs.

I shudder to think where people would be at if they had still been in power.

This is why our government has consistently taken action to help address costs of

living for people, reducing child care costs, cutting ICBC rates, boosting family

benefits and lowering hydro costs.

This motion also ignores the real costs of the climate crisis, which we've seen here

in B.C. with fires, floods, droughts and extreme heat. We've put a price on pollution

and are putting money back into the pockets of lower- and middle-income families.

Most people will get more back than they pay into the carbon tax.

We, as a government, are determined to reduce costs for people while moving forward

on climate action that is necessary, just like we have been doing in helping people

make the switch to heat pumps to cut pollution and their bills. Heating your home

with oil is very expensive. That's why we've been pushing Ottawa for a deal to provide

free heat pumps for people in B.C. switching from expensive fossil fuels for their

home heating.

People need help with costs. We will continue to be there for people, but what this

motion is proposing is absolutely the wrong approach. What really is the simple argument

behind the member's motion? Let's go through it: financial relief, essentially — the

simple argument that lowering fuel taxes can save money for vehicle owners, potentially

providing, especially during periods of high fuel prices, some relief — but the evidence

just isn't there. It doesn't support this argument.

[11:50 a.m.]

Reducing fuel tax does not save people money, especially for low-income individuals,

some of whom may not even own a car. It may temporarily make gas cheaper for everyone.

It benefits higher-income individuals who own cars the most.

Additionally, cutting gasoline taxes can lead to increased fuel consumption, again

benefiting fuel companies and contributing to pollution and climate change.

Even The Economist argues that cutting fuel taxes is a mistake, as it wastes money and makes it harder

to reduce the demand for fuel, which is essential, in this day and age, for transitioning

away from fossil fuels. Not only that, the revenue generated pays for vital infrastructure

and services that benefit people that are struggling the most.

What would they do? They don't have a plan. We know what they would do. They did it

for 16 years. They would cut services to people like you and me. They would cut services

to British Columbians. Again, I shudder to think what would have happened had they

been in the position that we are in now. Like I said, we've seen this story before.

On top of that, the adjunct environmental impact is costly and adds to the already

severe emergency crisis that we are in right now. We can't even calculate the economic

cost of that. Again, economic costs like that disproportionately affect people who

are poor.

Really, it's ineffective relief. Cutting fuel taxes does not effectively provide relief

to those most impacted. There are arguments against reducing the fuel tax, multitudes

of them out there. The potential negative impacts of cutting the fuel tax and cutting

the carbon tax far outweigh any cost benefit that you would get.

I know my time is almost over.

We've been reducing costs for people — ICBC, child care….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Bernier: It's an honour to get up and speak today to the motion that my colleague from Peace

River North put forward.

I'm actually going to start by reading that motion again. We have not heard it from

a lot of the members here in a bit. "Be it resolved that this House supports permanently

eliminating the provincial fuel tax to ease the pain at the pump and removing the

carbon tax on all home heating."

What's one of the reasons why this comes forward? Well, we've heard from a lot of

colleagues on this side of the House that we are in an affordability crisis. People

are struggling all around the province of British Columbia right now to make ends

meet. What's really important is that we look at ways and mechanisms to help people,

in this time, while they're struggling.

Let me explain a little bit about how that would really work on the ground. We have

some of these virtue signalling, altruistic kinds of comments that come from the NDP

that are not materialistically affecting people the way they should to support them

in this affordability crisis.

Now, in my town of Dawson Creek…. I'm about five miles from the Alberta border. Perfect

example. I can drive five miles and save 30 cents a litre just by going into Alberta.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Of course, one of the things we look at, and I'm a big proponent of, is: how do we

lower the costs for people in my region and in British Columbia? Eliminating 15 cents

right off the top, which the province has control of, will definitely help people.

Now, the NDP are trying to say: "Oh, it's not a lot of money. Oh, it's not going to

help a lot." Well, I can tell you. For a single mom struggling right now, to save

$20 to $30 on filling up her tank of gas, if she's fortunate enough to have a little

minivan to get her family around, that's huge.

We also talked about the carbon tax, eliminating it on home heating. We've seen this

happen right across Canada right now, except, where, in British Columbia. This is

something the province has control of. This is something that we could do about fairness,

equity — to support people and families in British Columbia.

People in my region have no choice, zero choice, but to heat their homes right now.

Minus 10, minus 15, minus 20. We get stretches, as we know, up in my region of minus

30, minus 40. To hear the NDP say, "Don't worry. We're going to get everybody on heat

pumps…." Well, news flash. They don't work in rural British Columbia.

This is a part of the business that I know very well. Heat pumps do not work once

you hit about minus 18 to minus 20. You need a secondary heat source. You're forcing

people now to go into two. Not going to work.

[11:55 a.m.]

We need to go back to the root causes and effects so that we can help people with

affordability. This is something I definitely support: making sure we eliminate the

carbon tax from home heating.

We've gone as far as saying that if the federal government eliminates carbon tax in

Canada, we, under the B.C. United, will do the same in the province of British Columbia

to make sure that we have that fair advantage and competitiveness right across — for

our industry, for our families, for the province as a whole.

The government is trying to say, "Oh, don't worry. We're going to raise carbon tax

to $170 a tonne," as if that will somehow miraculously affect our carbon emissions.

Guess what. One of the best ways we can reduce global emissions, as one of my first

colleagues talked about, is by supporting LNG and clean technology that will actually….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The member from the Green Party can laugh all he wants. I'm sure he might have time

to speak, but not today, because I'll have to close off debate soon, it looks like,

noting the time here. But we have seen that….

Interjections.

M. Bernier: You know, I always love being heckled because it gives me the opportunity…. I wish

I had more time.

I hate to inform the members from the NDP and even the Green Party that when we're

burning coal in China, those molecules of air actually come, and we breathe them here

in British Columbia.

I know the Green Party wants to be like The Truman Show and think there's just a little dome over the province of British Columbia and everything

we do affects only us. Well, guess what. This is a global economy, global emissions.

If we can actually do our part to help the world, then we're helping ourselves.

By reducing the carbon tax and the provincial sales tax, it's actually going to help

families, help pocketbooks today. It's something we can do, and I urge this government

to do just that.

A. Olsen: I think it's important to just note that this motion is bad politics. It's bad economics.

These comments need to be framed in the UN Emissions Gap Report that was released this morning. Fossil fuel production and use has reached record

highs, producing nearly 90 percent of CO2 emissions. We're on track for three degrees

of global warming.

Now is not the time to shy away from tackling climate change but to lean in. If anyone

thinks that doing less is somehow going to make things better, they're sorely mistaken.

The tax on fuel and the carbon tax are not the reasons British Columbians are facing

an affordability struggle. The fuel tax we pay at the pump funds transportation and

other critical infrastructure in our communities. Is transportation infrastructure

free? Will the members of this House have an honest discussion with British Columbians

about the need to create revenue-generating programs, such as mobility pricing, to

manage and fund transportation infrastructure in the future?

Cutting red tape and deregulating industry will not create the revenue we need to

upgrade and expand the transportation network. Cutting taxes sounds appealing, but

it doesn't solve the problem. Someone, somewhere will pay.

The idea to price pollution is to change behaviour, not punish people. For those who

cannot afford to change fuel type, carbon tax rebates are designed to neutralize the

cost. It provides an incentive to switch to low-carbon tech. It's good policy, and

it's good economics. It uses a price mechanism to manage demand rather than regulation,

and arguing to remove it is bad politics and nothing more than a quick win.

Taxing people and corporations who pollute is the right approach. While British Columbians

face suffocating social and economic pressures — the cost of food, fuel and housing

— we face an existential threat from climate change.

No one in British Columbia is spared from extreme weather events. Nothing is more

terrifying than the raging inferno of wildfires. Nothing is more powerful than water

in the atmospheric rivers and rains. Aging 20th-century infrastructure — the dikes,

the dams, the culverts — can't handle the 21st-century extreme weather events.

The emotional costs of crisis on people and communities are heavy, and the financial

cost is unsustainable. The B.C. United have to understand this. They've been besieged

by fire and fearing freshet for years.

[12:00 p.m.]

If we cut the carbon tax and the gas tax, do we think the savings will line the pockets

of the public? That's some sort of magical thinking. The fossil fuel corporations,

like the corporations that control our food, will raise their prices, and they'll

take that profit.

The federal and provincial governments have been proven unable to hold them accountable.

We fall for their corporate lobbying, arguing the cost of doing business in British

Columbia is too high, yet these multinationals post billion-dollar quarterly profits.

I agree it is too costly — for small business, but not for the multinationals.

These are the same predatory corporations that strip our environment bare, frack and

drain our aquifers and abandon industrial waste for the public to clean up. Greedy

corporate profit-taking, skyrocketing prices, shrinking proportions. We get more and

pay less.

I'll end with this. Let's tax the excessive corporate profits pilfered from hard-working

British Columbians. Let's tax the pollution and force the polluter to pay their proportion.

Let's make the heaviest emitters, including LNG, pay their fair share. Let's improve

the carbon tax, not cut it — increase personal rebates so they reflect the amount

of carbon tax that people pay.

Finally, let's get real in this place, because this motion was not real. British Columbians

deserve serious politics, not bad politics.

Hon. A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada