2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 27, 2017

Morning Sitting

Volume 42, Number 3

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2017

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

LAST POST FUND

G. Hogg: Lieutenant-Governor Guichon recently hosted the B.C. branch of the Last Post Fund at Government House. The Last Post Fund is a non-profit organization that provides veterans dignified funeral and burial services. The Last Post Fund has built memorials of remembrance and fields of honour at Surrey Centre, Mountain View and Sunnyside cemeteries.

Under the leadership of Howardeena Kembel-McGrory, they have also identified over 800 unmarked graves at Mountain View that they’re now marking. They still estimate there will be over 1,000 unmarked veterans’ graves in B.C.

B.C.’s Last Post Fund provides all British Columbians with a poignant and important reminder of our past, with shining appreciation and respect for our veterans at their last post and recognizing the important contributions they have made to our current way of life.

Our thank you to the members of the Last Post Fund of B.C.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M223 — RIGHT TO ROAM ACT, 2017

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Right to Roam Act, 2017.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Right to Roam Act, 2017, of which notice has been given, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Right to Roam Act, 2017.

The ability to access and experience nature is a right for all British Columbians, and we must protect it. This bill will re-establish the rights of British Columbians to access public lands, rivers, streams and lakes and to use these spaces to fish, hike and enjoy outdoor recreation.

Hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation are a pivotal part of British Columbia’s heritage and form an important part of the fabric of present-day life in British Columbia. They are also vital to the understanding, conservation and management of fish and wildlife in our province.

[1005]

Increasingly, however, British Columbians are being fenced out of wild areas that have been enjoyed by the public for generations.

One particularly high profile example involved public access to Minnie, Stoney and other lakes surrounded by Douglas Lake Ranch, spread out over more than 500,000 acres. Public access was prevented when Stoney Lake Road was suddenly gated in the 1970s and subsequently locked in the 1980s. This bill, which is built on a combination of B.C.’s existing Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act and Nova Scotia’s Angling Act, aims to address and prevent such conflicts.

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 M223, Right to Roam Act, 2017, 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.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

AGRIFOODS

D. Bing: British Columbia’s agrifoods sector is critical to the growth and development of our province. We are continually focusing on creating an economic climate that supports success. Our strategic investments in innovation and infrastructure are working to provide B.C. farm families with the chance to earn a higher income, all while ensuring our province has a growing agrifoods economy and a reliable food source for years to come.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

And 2014 was a record year for agrifoods, with $12.3 billion in sales. That record was then surpassed in 2016 with $13 billion in sales, clearly showing that our agrifoods strategy is working. The agrifoods sector also achieved record exports of $3.5 billion in 2015; 2,200 more British Columbians have jobs in primary agriculture and ranching compared to a year ago; and 3,900 more have jobs in B.C.’s growing value-added processing companies.

Our government’s Agrifood and Seafood Strategic Growth Plan supports the building of domestic markets and maintaining a secure food supply. This will help support local agrifood companies to promote local foods that are grown, raised, harvested and processed in B.C.
[ Page 13834 ]

Members on this side of the House believe in providing stable funding for the Buy Local program. This is why we have already invested $8 million into it since 2012. This has funded close to 200 projects, enabling companies to expand their reach and sales in communities throughout B.C., leveraging $29 million in investment through matching funds. Additionally, we are committed to the agrifoods sector as a part of the B.C. jobs plan and will continue to work to grow the sector to become a $15 billion a year industry by 2020.

Within the agrifoods sector, our government has recently focused on the production and exportation of berries. Last year a small amount of fresh blueberries were sent to China to see if they would meet the government’s shipping and packing process. This test run was a definite success. Now, because of that success, B.C. will increase the amount of blueberry shipments to China, with the potential of $65 million a year in exports once the agreement is fully implemented.

And 96 percent of Canadian cultivated blueberries are grown in B.C., with about 95 percent of that taking place in the Lower Mainland and the southwest of the province. I support our government’s initiative to work with farmers to ensure this expansion of the industry is fruitful. I know the large amount of blueberry farms in my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows will benefit from growing export demands.

In 2015, B.C.’s farmers harvested 70,000 tonnes of blueberries. This was an increase of 7 percent. Exports of blueberries also grew to $218 million, which was up 29 percent from 2014. To further grow the industry, our government is funding innovative products to benefit the sector. We have put funding towards calcium foliar spray, which is intended to help reduce premature fruit drop and increase blueberry yields. All together, we expect this to benefit the industry as a whole, providing consumers with larger supplies of blueberries and farmers with larger harvests.

[1010]

Beyond this growing bounty for farmers, it’s important to note that the average handful of blueberries is only 80 calories and contains 3.6 grams of dietary fibre. Ranked as No. 1 in antioxidant health benefits in a comparison of 40 fresh fruits and vegetables, I recommend that each member grab a handful this summer.

L. Popham: Well, it’s very interesting to hear the member stand up and talk about how much support there is for agriculture, coming from his government. He mentioned, specifically, things like the agrifood strategy as critical to growth in agriculture and that this government is continually working on ensuring that that plan is in place, because it’s working. He mentioned how important it is that we ensure B.C. has food security and is a reliable food source that’s growing and that it was a record year for agriculture in British Columbia.

All that being said, I’d like to point out a few things to this member. Agriculture is carrying on in British Columbia. The successes of agriculture are not due to this government; they’re in spite of this government.

The member’s own riding is struggling with a situation that is the biggest barrier to farmers entering the agriculture field in the province of British Columbia, and that is the cost of acquiring a farm and access to farmland. In this member’s own riding, because this government has off-loaded and downloaded the decisions on how big houses can be built on agricultural land — they’ve given this to local governments — this decision around size of homes on agricultural land reserve is left to councils to make their decisions.

If they’re supportive of agriculture, we may see them fighting some of the applications that come through for size of homes. If they’re not, we see applications being approved. Thank goodness there’s a council in this member’s riding that believes in agriculture and believes that it’s under threat by mismanagement of land use.

In this member’s own riding, there was an application for…. There’s a 33-acre lot in the agricultural land reserve, and an application went in for a home that would be 31,000 square feet. This was put out there. Questions were asked of the minister on how he feels about this sort of situation — we see it happening in Richmond; we see it happening in Delta; we see this happening in this member’s riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows — and the minister said: “Well, I think that the local government really likes to be in charge of this.”

I’ve been hearing from local governments. Local governments are struggling with this. It’s taking them a lot of time and a lot of money to deal with something that really belongs under the purview, in my view, of the Agricultural Land Commission. The agricultural land reserve has a mandate to protect agricultural land and to encourage farming. With this situation in place, it really is up to the councils, and they don’t need to have that mandate when they’re making those decisions.

Interjection.

L. Popham: There’s a member that is heckling. They’re very sensitive, because they know that over their time in government, they have eroded the agricultural land reserve to make sure that the highest and best use for agricultural land is development. The member across the way should really understand more clearly that the reason why he is able to farm is because up until this point there has been an amazing land use tool in place with the agricultural land reserve, the most effective land use tool that we’ve had in this province as far as protecting our food-growing lands.

Under this government, we’ve seen a minister declare war on the agricultural land reserve, rip it apart, tear it into two. There is no way that this government believes in
[ Page 13835 ]
the mandate of the agricultural land reserve. You can see that with the way the Minister of Agriculture distances himself from land use decisions on agricultural land.

That’s not the only place where this minister distances himself. We’ve also seen situations up in the Cariboo where corporations are coming in from the U.K. planting trees. The minister does not insist on any remediation on that land, so that agricultural land, very valuable for that area, is now out of commission because a corporation decided the land use on that land instead of this government, even though it falls under a provincial commission.

[1015]

Now, this government has also made it very clear that they would like to see as much political interference in that commission as possible so that we can continue to erode this land use tool. We see this government making decisions and downloading decisions on licensed producers of cannabis being able to produce cannabis on farmland….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. Member.

D. Bing: I’d like to thank the member for her response.

In closing, I’d like to focus on another strong sector of our agrifoods industry. The agritech sector continues to innovate, maximizing productivity, minimizing inputs and creating great value from B.C.’s farmland.

Our government is focused on supporting agritech as a way to boost B.C’s agrifoods industry. By attracting new talent, creating jobs and ensuring that the province’s agriculture industry remains ahead of the curve, we can encourage growth in our province’s agrifoods industry.

We are supporting the development and commercialization of agritech in a of ways. The Agritech Innovation Challenge is bringing innovators and industry together to develop a product or process to enhance productivity, sustainability and the resiliency of our agrifoods sector. So $80,000 in seed funding will be awarded to help further development of the proposal and new technology.

Our government has also partnered with the federal government in the $13.4 million Canada-B.C. agri-innovation program to support new development and commercialization of this industry. This funding provides support to industry-led late-stage research, pilot and pre-commercial demonstration projects that lead to the commercialization and adaptation of innovative products, processes, practices and technologies in B.C.

We’ve also invested $1 million to help create the University of the Fraser Valley’s Agriculture Centre of Excellence. This centre provides infrastructure and programs to identify and react to trends, challenges and opportunities in the agrifoods business.

Our government has also provided $844,000 in support of a new agriculture- and technology-focused program: the ag-tech venture acceleration program in Mission, B.C. The program provides entrepreneurs and start-ups in the Fraser Valley with training, coaching and mentoring to maximize commercialization opportunities and to accelerate growth in agritech companies.

Lastly, we are working with the B.C. Innovation Council on the four-year, $800,000 Bioenterprise program, which provides agritech entrepreneurs and start-ups in the Fraser Valley with business plan assistance, market analysis, funding, guidance and networking to help to accelerate their growth.

All of these investments, I should mention, were made possible without raising taxes on British Columbians or borrowing — both practices that the members on that side of the House are all too prone to do.

Innovation is an area that our government is pursuing in all sectors, and B.C.’s blooming agrifoods business is no exception. We are funding $900,000 worth of new projects to support a broad range of products, practices and technologies of direct benefit to this sector. This funding will be used to develop a customized smartphone app that will provide growers with information to identify pests and diseases in B.C. blueberry fields and provide the appropriate control actions. This project will aid farmers not only in my riding but across the province.

DEFENDING OUR COAST AND
SUPPORTING GOOD JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

G. Heyman: In January, the Premier of British Columbia fully adopted the political theory of alternate facts and announced that her five so-called conditions for approval of pipelines and a sevenfold increase of tanker traffic off B.C.’s coast had been met and that these conditions were really about getting to yes. Now that they’ve been met, her government could say yes to the sevenfold increase in tanker traffic off our coast. I think it’s important to look beneath the alternate facts and look at some real facts.

Studies have shown, frankly, that there’s simply too much risk of the chance of a spill. With a sevenfold increase of tanker traffic, the serious oil spill risk will increase 168 percent overall for the entire Salish Sea but, most significantly, in Haro Strait and Boundary Pass by 475 percent and by 138 percent in the Gulf Islands.

[1020]

The Premier and others have talked about world-class oil spill recovery, but the facts — not alternate facts but facts — are that diluted bitumen, otherwise known as dilbit, is much more dangerous to ship and more difficult to clean up than conventional oil.

The leading science on dilbit cleanup is detailed in the National Academy of Sciences study released in 2016. Yet the National Energy Board, which did the environmental hearings that this government accepted in whole, rejected a request to review a draft of the most comprehensive study of the effects of spilled dilbit. What the National Academy of Sciences found is that dilbit can
[ Page 13836 ]
and will sink when spilled in water, and the study concluded that there is no technique or equipment available to effectively clean up heavy oils.

Let’s look at the Premier’s five conditions, which she claims have been met. One, successful completion of the environmental review. Last June this government quietly accepted the Harper-era National Energy Board’s review as their own, despite the fact that it was a process and a review this government had previously sharply criticized right up to the end of their hearings. The Premier had a chance to stand up for British Columbia. She could have withdrawn from the equivalency agreement and done a made-in-B.C. environmental review but gave up that opportunity.

Two, world-leading marine oil spill response prevention and recovery system. I’ve talked about the study by the National Academy of Sciences, the Georgia Strait Alliance’s Alexandra Woodsworth says there’s no technology to recover diluted bitumen that has sunk below the surface. The Premier promised to stand up for British Columbians; she has failed.

Three, world-leading practices for land oil spill prevention response and recovery systems. When the hearings from the National Energy Board were going on, the Premier and her government cited land-based spills as the major reason they opposed the Trans Mountain expansion proposal. The government’s own submission to the NEB featured more than 20 pages of detailed concerns and then concluded: “The evidence on record does not demonstrate an ability to respond adequately to spills from the pipelines.”

It’s hard to imagine what new information the Premier has seen over the past year to change her mind. The fact remains that she and her government accepted, in place of a made-in-B.C. environmental review, a review by the Harper-era National Energy Board that they had criticized on every front, including when they made submissions.

Four, legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights must be addressed. Well, we’re in store for many years of court battles. The Tsleil-Waututh, the people of the inlet, and the Squamish, the Kwantlen and Coldwater Nations have taken legal action against Trans Mountain and say they were not properly consulted on the pipeline project. The chief of the Tsleil-Waututh, Maureen Thomas, says the federal government’s consultation process was disappointingly flawed.

Finally, the fifth condition, British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits. I’ve looked at the memorandum that was signed with Trans Mountain. One of the first things it says — before it talks about the possibility, depending on contracts and sales, of somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion — is that it is not legally binding. It is not a legally binding agreement, and it comes nowhere near covering the cost of forgone at-risk economic opportunity and jobs or the cost of cleanup.

The impacts of an oil spill will be long-lasting. They will impact sectors from tourism to agriculture and could have a $1.2 billion impact on B.C.’s economy. Once the bitumen or other product has been loaded onto a tanker, Kinder Morgan is no longer liable — no longer liable. The risk is then transferred to ship owners, and the risks are capped at about $1.36 billion. That won’t even cover the cost of cleanup, let alone the threat to B.C.’s tourism economy and B.C.’s seafood industry. It produces sales of $13 billion a year, while tourism brings $14 billion a year into B.C.

[1025]

UBC researchers acting for the city of Vancouver found that a large oil spill could negatively impact the segment of the economy in Vancouver by $1.2 billion in output value. The damages could cost between 3,000 and 12,000 person-years of employment and up to $687 million in provincial GDP, excluding the costs of cleanup. The losses will increase in coastal areas outside of B.C.

This is a bad deal for B.C. This government thinks it’s a good deal.

J. Tegart: I am pleased to respond to the statement from the member opposite on this important issue of ensuring strong environmental protection while still maintaining our advantage of economic success and investment in our province. I am proud of my government and their record of not only standing up and advocating but, also, in delivering results for the people of the province.

As we stated at the time of the Trans Mountain approval, our clear, consistent and principled position on its five conditions have resulted in tangible and significant investments that will protect B.C.’s environmental and economic interests. This was a process initiated by the federal government, and we would only provide our approval if the five conditions we laid out were met.

I would like to take the opportunity to highlight and expand upon the agreement that was made with both Trans Mountain and the federal government to ensure that our environment was protected and that B.C. received benefits from this project.

In response to our second condition, we were able to confirm a financial commitment of $1.5 billion from the federal government for the creation of a world-leading marine safety system which includes preventative and response measures. This will include the creation of a modern radar and navigation system; improvements to the weather services, allowing for proactively managing vessel-routing; two multipurpose, tow-capable vessels to augment the Coast Guard’s towing capability; and the establishment of a 24-7 emergency operation centre in Port Hardy. That’s just a few examples.

As an MLA who is very concerned about finding that balance between the environment and economic opportunity, I did not understand the marine safety program that we were looking at. I had the opportunity to visit a
[ Page 13837 ]
control centre in Nanaimo. As someone from the Interior, I was so impressed with the work that we’re doing on protecting our coastline and how important that work is to the whole project. And as someone from the Interior, it was heartening for me to see the work that’s being done on developing that world-class marine system. I feel quite comfortable that we are finding the balance between the environment and economic development.

Further, Trans Mountain has agreed to an additional $150 million investment for spill response capacity, leading to the creation of 100 new jobs, as well as a commitment that tankers will be escorted by a tug for the entire transit, up to Race Rocks.

Addressing the third condition laid out — mitigation and management of risks associated with heavy oil — amendments have been passed to further strengthen the Environmental Management Act, establishing new requirements for spill preparedness, response and recovery, as well as creating new offences and penalties for infractions.

Because of this agreement, our government is pleased to be able to provide between $25 million and $50 million in funds, annually for the coming 20 years, in a newly created B.C. clean communities program, available across the province, for the protection and enhancement of our shared environment.

I’m proud of our government’s strong, consistent track record on this matter in terms of a clear, principled position that we have advocated from the beginning of this process, contrary to the members opposite. It is often heard: “Oh, we’re in favour.” Then we flip to: “No, we’re not in favour.”

[1030]

I certainly experienced that in the last election — no clarity on position in regards to this project, in particular, which is credibly important in my riding.

I remind everyone that we are all connected, whether we live on the coast or in the interior of British Columbia. Environment, economic development and finding that balance are critically important to the health of our province. The people of this province deserve a government who will be steadfast and consistent in standing up for both their economic and environmental interests. Our government has a strong track record.

G. Heyman: I want to commend the member for Fraser-Nicola for getting the Premier’s alternate-facts approach down straight. But the fact remains, and it is a fact. It doesn’t matter if spill response is world-leading if it’s world-leading in inadequacy and cannot be dealt with.

Again, the National Academy of Sciences: “There is no technique or equipment available to clean up heavy oils that have submerged or settled on the bottom of fresh- or saltwater bodies.” And dilbit sinks.

Nothing changed between the time this government rejected the National Energy Board approach and rejected Kinder Morgan’s solutions in their submission to the National Energy Board other than the Premier’s desire to wheel and deal and be able to say she got to yes. It’s not a matter of trading off or balancing environmental protection and jobs for B.C. In this case, we’re risking the environment, we’re risking our marine life, and we are risking the economy.

When the Deepwater Horizon spill happened in Louisiana, whether seafood was directly affected or not, Louisiana lost markets because people believed it was all affected. Tourism throughout the state, not just on the coast, suffered for years because people associated Louisiana with oiled waters.

The Gitga’at people on B.C.’s coast know firsthand how even a small spill of refined product can contaminate shellfish and other traditional foods. After the Queen of the North ferry sank, they were unable to harvest shellfish and seaweed near the area for years. That’s exactly what First Nations on the coast are trying to avoid.

Hon. Speaker, let me simply close by saying it’s not just tourism jobs that are at risk. It’s not just marine harvest that’s at risk. We have an existing oil refinery in Burnaby. That existing oil refinery has provided over 400 well-paid jobs for over 70 years. Those jobs, according to the union — they’re Unifor, and we know that Chevron has put that refinery up for sale — are at risk. They will be at the very end of the supply chain because they, by the nature of their work, deal in short-term contracts as opposed to the long-term contracts that will go to the oil companies for exporting bitumen.

If that refinery can’t get product, those over 400 jobs are at risk. Even Kinder Morgan’s inflated figures only talk about 300 jobs. Others talk about 50. It’s a bad deal.

SINGLE-PARENT EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVE

S. Hamilton: British Columbia is a province that’s the envy of many jurisdictions around the globe, and many things make us great: our beautiful natural environment, thriving economy and the fact that those in need are able to receive help from the government. Our government believes that we must do what we can to support those who need a hand up, people like our single moms and dads trying to improve their employment prospects while raising children.

That’s why we introduced the single-parent employment initiative, to give a hand up, not a handout. We know that the most effective way for parents to provide for their children is through a good job that provides steady income and that there are some parents who face greater challenges and need extra support in building the lives they want for themselves and their children.

[1035]

We want these parents to live the fulfilling life they deserve and set the example they want to set for their children. That’s what the single-parent employment initiative
[ Page 13838 ]
is all about: giving these parents the support they need to transition to the workplace. The supports and programs government has put in place allow single parents to receive training to secure a long-term job. These are in-demand jobs in areas that single parents know they will be able to continue working in for years to come. Having that confidence in their job gives single moms and dads confidence in raising and providing for their families as well.

The feedback has been overwhelming. Not only is the program the most innovative of its kind in Canada, but the program has been able to make a difference in so many lives already. At first, we thought the uptake on this program would be fairly modest — a few hundred, at best. Since its launch in September 2015, 4,419 people have signed up for the program, and of these, 845 have successfully achieved employment already.

These aren’t just numbers. These are mothers and fathers who have been laid off, and some have escaped abusive relationships. We know the lot. We’ve seen the sorts of things that people on income assistance have had to go through in their lives, and some of it’s not very nice. These are people who have been out of the workforce for a long time, parents who just need a bit of extra help to get off income assistance and back to the workforce.

Government wants to help these men and women support their families. We want them to feel proud of their achievements. Seeing their parents’ success encourages children to be successful, and the single-parent employment initiative allows parents to change their lives and the lives of their children. Single parents who rely on income assistance and are already finding employment often find themselves faced with barriers that most of us are lucky enough not to experience. These single parents may be faced with the need to pay for daycare before they receive their first paycheque. They need to pay for tuition up front or have issues in finding affordable transportation. All these issues make it very insurmountable.

All of these issues are covered under the single-parent employment initiative. By keeping their supports in place and by offering single parents funding for tuition, child care, transportation to and from their studies, and other supports, they’re able to focus on what really matters: their ability to receive training so they can provide a better life for themselves and their children. Moreover, single parents are able to breathe easier, knowing that they retain their health supplement coverage for a year after they leave income assistance. This includes dental, optical and premium-free Ministry of Health MSP and PharmaCare programs.

The government’s five-year, $24.5 million investment helps ensure that single parents can also enjoy the opportunity to benefit from B.C.’s strong and growing economy while also transitioning into the workforce with skills and training that align with today’s job market demands. This program supports B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint, adding to British Columbia’s continuous growth and leading s in job creation across Canada. The single-parent employment initiative is so well respected and appreciated that previous clients of the program are now working with Work B.C. to provide orientation sessions to help to spread the word about this fantastic program.

We believe that the future of British Columbia is about investing in people. Our single-parent employment initiative makes the transition to employment easier than staying on income assistance. Our government is dedicated to helping British Columbians in need by supporting them and, in turn, having them support themselves.

M. Mungall: Well, you know that an election must be around the corner when you have a member get up and read a seven-minute press release.

Let’s be clear about how this program came about in British Columbia. It is a direct result of the advocacy that was done by members from this side of the House but, more importantly, by single moms all across this province, and other advocates, when they said no to the child support clawback and that enough was enough. Their children deserved to see the child support payments that were being offered them by their non-custodial parent. That this government was clawing back those child support payments was absolutely immoral, it was wrong, and it was worsening child poverty in this province.

It was the single parents who had to realize what it was like to not be able to feed their children enough food so they could go to school and learn and have every opportunity available to them in the education system. It was they who stood forward and advocated to no longer be living in poverty, to no longer have to be forced to see their children living in poverty.

[1040]

From that, we saw an end to the child support clawback. We also saw this program, which is a good program. Let’s not make any mistake. It’s a good program. It’s helping some people. But it’s some.

The member across the way talked about the giant rates of success — 4,400 participants, yes. But only 19 percent of those participants are actually getting a job and are successfully walking away from that program with the things that they need to move out of poverty. So 19 percent is the success rate. What’s going on with this government that only 19 percent is their success rate? That’s an abysmal rate.

What we heard from the member opposite is pretty much what we saw with the Auditor General’s report on the integrated case management IT system. Government measures effort. It doesn’t measure outcomes. We’re seeing the exact same approach with this initiative.

I want to know, single parents want to know and British Columbians want to know why this government has such a low success rate with this program. What’s
[ Page 13839 ]
going on over there that they’re not able to manage it so that we are lifting more and more people out of poverty? Maybe we would know the answers to that if we had a poverty reduction plan in this province. Yet we remain the only province in Canada without a poverty reduction plan because this government thinks that a jobs plan is all that’s needed. It forgets that there’s a variety of barriers to getting a job for many, many people and that we have to look at the broader issue.

We have to look at housing, for example. What’s the broader issue around housing and why homelessness is increasing in this province? These are the things that we need to be looking at.

I think it’s also interesting to note that this type of program isn’t a first in British Columbia. Something similar actually existed in the B.C. Liberal government’s favourite decade, the 1990s, under the New Democrat government. I’ve heard from many single parents who actually benefited from those types of programs, how it allowed them to go back to school, to go to university — and not just the select programs that the B.C. Liberals identified for the single-parent employment initiative. It actually allowed them to access any post-secondary education, and the success that they realized from that was a game changer in their lives.

There are beneficial aspects to this program, to be sure. Not enough people are realizing them. It only limits people’s aspirations to a select of jobs that this government has identified, rather than allowing people the opportunity of choice.

I want to summarize that if it weren’t for single moms coming forward and fighting for the rights of their children, this government would never, ever have responded with a type of program that supported people being lifted out of poverty and working their way out of poverty. I have been here long enough to see that that is absolutely the truth. I’d like to know, and maybe the member will respond in his upcoming remarks, why 19 percent is their success rate and what they are going to do to ensure that more people can realize success — maybe not be government after May 9.

S. Hamilton: I’m very pleased that the member for Nelson-Creston brought up the 1990s and talked about measuring outcomes. I think we’re still measuring the outcomes of some of the decisions that were made by the NDP in the 1990s. Those decisions are what led us to what we’re doing now, and that’s why we can afford to put these types of programs in place.

The member seemed to want to spend a lot of time dwelling on a 19 percent success rate. It’s not a 19 percent success rate. This program isn’t even 18 months old, and they’re one-year-long programs that most of the people subscribe to. Give them a little time to graduate, Member. Give them a little time to graduate. Give it a little time.

[1045]

I’d like the member to give it a little more time, and there will be more people coming out of these programs gainfully employed in their communities, supporting their families, paying taxes and contributing to the economy of this province. I ask the member to give them just a little more time.

I know that the members opposite…. The easy thing to do is to just raise the taxes and pay the money. We don’t necessarily believe that. We think giving people an opportunity to contribute to this society and giving them that hand up that I spoke to a little bit earlier is the way we should go. And these people appreciate that. I’ve got a young lady in my own riding by the name of Mitzi, and she’s got an incredible story. She lived out of the country. She lived in South America for 17 years. She came back. She’s a single mom, and she was stuck. She didn’t know what to do. We actually helped her up. She’s actually completed the program, is gainfully employed, supporting her child. It’s been a huge success story for her.

Having been away from our community and our province for so long, she found it almost impossible to reintegrate. We helped her do that. This is where the program has helped her. It’s covered all of her costs of training, child care and transportation, and she was able to find a job. We’ve helped her, and we’re continuing to pay her health premiums for another year. All of her health benefits are still on record. She’s still going to be helped out by us until she hits the ground running, and she’s got a successful life now.

She’s got a job she loves. She works with computers. She loves interacting with people, and she’s got an opportunity to do that. And she says — her words — “Participating in the SPEI program has changed my life. It’s because of this program that I now have the tools to continue working on my future and supporting my daughter.”

These are real-life stories, they’re real-life people, and we are making a difference in their lives.

RIVERVIEW — A REAL CAMPUS OF CARE

S. Robinson: The Riverview lands can rise like a phoenix and be part of the solution of our current opioid crisis and the significant gap in the mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment system that we currently have. Riverview is situated on a 244-acre site located on the eastern slope of Coquitlam Mountain, overlooking the Fraser and Coquitlam rivers. It is a unique space of peace and tranquility, situated at a crossroads between Royal Columbian Hospital, Ridge Meadows Hospital, Surrey Hospital and Eagle Ridge Hospital.

In 1904, the province purchased over 400 acres for the construction of Riverview Hospital and the neighbouring Colony Farm. Located near the junction of the Fraser and Coquitlam rivers, it was believed that the natural setting would help in the therapeutic treatment of patients. By
[ Page 13840 ]
1913, the first permanent ward, the male chronic building, opened its doors, and the new ward was quickly filled to capacity, with over 900 patients. At that time, Riverview was recognized as a model of psychiatric health care, one of the most progressive asylums in North America, and it even received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Riverview continued to expand, and by 1956 there were over 4,300 patients housed on the site. Over time, though, governments did recognize that with the changing understanding of mental illness, the treatment models needed to change as well, and Riverview was dismantled piece by piece over several governments for the next 30 years and finally officially closed in 2012.

Now, the physical space known as Riverview is still relatively whole. But supports and resources for those in our province living with mental illness…. Well, those supports are full of big holes — big, gaping holes. Just as the buildings on the Riverview site are deteriorating, so are those in our province living with mental illness and substance abuse disorder. We are in the midst of a severe opioid crisis that just won’t let up, and our collective neglect and lack of vision and planning for mental health care has resulted in a different form of demolition by neglect.

I know that every single member of this House has heard stories of those in our communities from around the province who have fallen through these mental health care cracks. We are currently in the midst of this crisis. We’ve lost 914 lives just last year. Centre Lawn, this massive building in the middle of the Riverview site, only shuttered four years ago and could be readily available to help in the midst of this crisis.

Coquitlam’s own mayor, Richard Stewart, who sat on the other side of this Legislature between 2001 and 2005, has made a very public plea to us, those of us who took an oath to serve the public. He made a plea that we consider repurposing Centre Lawn as a resource for the current opioid crisis. Here is an existing resource readily available to help out in a crisis, and it’s just sitting empty.

[1050]

We see communities like Maple Ridge struggle with addressing homelessness in their community. We see our police forces and our criminal justice system having to cope with those who suffer a range of psychiatric illnesses. We know we are using our criminal justice system instead of our health care system to house those with mental illnesses.

We’ve heard from the Union of B.C. Municipalities — representing local governments from all over this province, who have spoken as one voice — that Riverview needs to be repurposed with a 21st-century model of mental health and substance abuse disorder care. Local governments see the value of having this amazing resource provide help and refuge for those who need it most. Local governments are seeing, firsthand, what happens when the services, treatments and supports that these people need are just not available when they need them most.

The most amazing thing about this vision for Riverview is that the residents of Coquitlam would welcome the opportunity to have Riverview as a haven, a place of calm, a place of trees and rolling lawns, a place of wellness for those in need.

As I prepared my comments for today, I had the opportunity to reflect on some of my constituents, who would have benefited from a revitalized and modernized Riverview. I think of Jason, a 21-year-old young man who came to my office at the behest of his mother last August. She had told me that Jason had been addicted to oxycodone and now has turned to heroin. He broke his ankle when he was just 19 years old, and the physician who treated him provided him with some oxycodone for pain relief. The prescription was for 150 pills. Needless to say, Jason liked the way the medication made him feel, and when the prescription ran out, he began to pursue street drugs.

Jason, at the time, in August, had been living on the streets. He was stealing. He was doing whatever he needed to get his hands on more drugs. When I first saw Jason, I thought he looked like a survivor of the Holocaust. He was gaunt, pale, and his eyes had a vacant look. He hadn’t eaten or showered in days, and he hated what he had become. My heart broke for Jason, because he was so filled with self-loathing at how addiction took him away from his life and from his family.

I spent that afternoon making phone call after phone call, scouring the Internet, looking for some resource for this young man. He was sitting in my office on an August afternoon. He was still high and needed to be in a safe place where he could be starting a road to recovery. Riverview has the potential to be that place.

I represent the constituents of Coquitlam-Maillardville. Riverview sits on the eastern border of my riding. I can, with great confidence, declare in this House that revitalizing Riverview as a dedicated place for mental health would be welcome in my constituency. The city of Coquitlam welcomes it, and so do its citizens.

For over a hundred years Riverview has served British Columbians living with mental illness. It has a history as a leading-edge and progressive mental health institution. Yes, it does have a history of some pretty barbaric treatments that we now understand to be ineffective and even harmful.

Psychiatric treatments have come a long way since the ’50s and ’60s, and we know, as a province, that we need a real, comprehensive mental health strategy and a centre of excellence for mental health care and substance abuse disorder treatment. We should be reinvigorating Riverview as a centre. It has the potential and the opportunity to save lives, and it’s right in the middle of my community. I’m ready to move this into action.
[ Page 13841 ]

L. Reimer: It is, indeed, a privilege to respond to the member from Coquitlam-Maillardville and her statement on our jewel, the Riverview lands. As a fellow member from Coquitlam, I understand how important it is to address mental health issues in our community.

The hon. member is aware that after two years of consultation with thousands of British Columbians and multiple stakeholders on the future use of the Riverview lands, the province released a vision for renewing the Riverview lands.

The vision for Riverview is a comprehensive mixed-use community, including mental health services and supportive and market housing. Our goal is to balance these interests and be true to our key guiding principles, which are a break-even mandate, an accommodation of our First Nation aspirations, and a commitment to maintain the same amount of green space as is currently existing. The province will also continue to work closely with the city of Coquitlam and the Coquitlam First Nation as we move forward.

[1055]

Furthermore, our government is making significant investments in mental health across the province, including on our jewel, the Riverview site. The site contains 40 rehabilitation and recovery beds for people with mental illness and substance use issues. All operating funding that previously supported Riverview has been transferred to regional health authorities to invest in community beds and services. The transfer has allowed us to invest in 826 specialized community mental health beds across the province and five assertive community treatment teams, known as ACT.

In addition to the investment across the province, we are continuing to further invest in mental health services in Coquitlam and the Lower Mainland. A new 105-bed mental health facility for people with severe substance use and/or mental illness is currently being built on the Riverview lands. This is part of the $101 million Centre for Mental Health and Addiction facility replacement project. It is expected to be completed in 2019.

We continue to provide services that are accessible where they are needed in the community. These services cover a wide range of needs, including assessment, referral, counselling, social supports and at-home and day hospital withdrawal management and opioid agonist treatment. Other mental health facilities have been constructed on the Riverview grounds, including Connolly, Cottonwood and Cypress Lodge. Together, these three lodges have beds for 64 patients.

We’ve also made other significant capital investments in mental health and substance use facilities: the Joseph and Rosalie Segal Centre, $82 million; the mental health and substance use treatment facility at Royal Columbian Hospital, which will open in 2019 as part of the phase 1 rebuild of RCH; addiction treatment beds, $10 million; substance use treatment beds, $30 million; a new ten-bed, in-patient unit for youth aged 13-18 at the Hope Centre, opening in spring 2017; and a ten-bed child and adolescent psychiatric stabilization unit at Surrey Memorial Hospital will be open in 2017.

Many in this chamber know that to invest in these services, we need to continue to improve government revenue. The opposition will have you believe they’re the only ones with answers to our mental health care needs in the province. However, this side of the House will increase investments by cutting taxes for middle-class families while continuing to grow our economy.

This side of the House knows what having Canada’s one economy means. It means that we can continue to invest in the mental health and substance use services the province needs. Our continued investment in mental health and substance use services demonstrates our government’s commitment to addressing the very necessary mental health and substance use issues in Coquitlam and across the province.

S. Robinson: I am appreciative that I have the opportunity to respond to the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, because I think some of her s are rather problematic and provide a misrepresentation around exactly what’s happening on the Riverview site.

The stakeholders that actually entered into the engagement process and the consultation process to create this vision to renew Riverview are actually quite angry. They really feel that they were used and that they were duped. If the member opposite would engage with them and meet with them, she would hear exactly how frustrated they are.

The reality is that for most of the lands at Riverview the intention is to have it for housing, hon. Speaker. Do you know why? Because the property there, the 244 acres, is worth something. It has value. But it also has value, I would argue, for mental health and supports for people in British Columbia.

The other illusion or alternative fact is this notion that this 105-bed facility that is being built now on this site is somehow new beds. Well, it’s not new beds. There are 17 new beds. Those existing beds came from Burnaby, and they’re only being moved to Coquitlam. So it’s quite the play game. It’s a shell game about: “We’re going to move these beds from here to here and move those beds from there to there, and, oh look, we’ll just throw in four or five or a dozen more beds and make it look like we’re really producing hundreds of new beds.” These recounts and double counts and triple counts, all with that triple-delete model of this government, is actually rather frustrating.

[1100]

At the end of the day, 914 people died last year because of the opioid crisis, and hundreds more are dying each month. The reality is that we have a resource right here, right now that we can make use of for those people.

This government had a ten-year plan. I think it started in 2007 or 2008. I’m just actually going through it right
[ Page 13842 ]
now. We are in year 7 of that mental health plan — year 7 — and right now we have hundreds and hundreds of young people dying on our streets and in their homes.

We have to be active. We have to respond to this crisis. It’s imperative. I’m really disappointed that Riverview has not come up, not once. Not once has it come up during this crisis, by this government, as an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of British Columbians, those who are engaging in harmful behaviours. I understand that, but they need our help. We should be doing more, and Riverview absolutely should be part of the solution.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call Motion 4.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 4 without disturbing the priority of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 4 — CARBON TAX

E. Foster: I rise today to move a motion.

[Be it resolved that this House agrees that British Columbia’s carbon tax should remain revenue neutral.]

Revenue neutrality is an integral part of ensuring that we can both protect our environment and protect our economy.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The difference could not be more sharp with that of the official opposition members, who have made it clear that they are out of touch with this matter — out of touch with working families in the Interior, out of touch with matters of economic security, out of touch with the basic idea that a carbon tax shouldn’t be used as a trough for pet projects.

The Leader of the Opposition visited my riding just this past October. [Applause.] Well, I’m glad he was there.

I called on him at that time to explain to my constituents why he had advocated to drastically increase the carbon tax, making life more expensive for folks in the Interior and in the north. But the Leader of the Opposition was emphatic when he was quoted in the Vernon Morning Star, saying that I somehow was wrong.

The member might want to clap for this one too. Mere months later and only a few weeks ago, the opposition announced a climate scheme — a scheme that involves hiking the carbon tax by $20 by 2022 and using that blatant cash grab for their preferred pet projects like making northern and Interior residents pay for the transit for the Lower Mainland and Victoria.

In no circumstances should the hope and pride that British Columbians have in our climate leadership be used as a guise to extract money for government pet projects. Revenue neutrality is important for British Columbians and, to date, has been delivered. Inexplicably, the opposition has taken issue with the revenue neutrality aspect of the carbon tax.

In 2015, the Leader of the Opposition admitted: “We voted against the B.C. carbon tax because of the revenue neutrality.” That’s problematic, but mind you, it’s not out of character for the opposition to want to maximize taxes. What is problematic is that the opposition wants to use it as a scheme to transfer money from rural British Columbia to projects in Vancouver and Victoria.

In 2011, the Leader of the Opposition said of the carbon tax: “I would suggest that the next two instalments should be going directly into public transit, whether it be here on the Lower Mainland, where I am today — a beautiful day by the way — or on the south Island.”

Now, I know that my constituents in Vernon-Monashee want our province to succeed, but they should not be exploited to fund urban pet projects, as the opposition would have it. It is an outrageous notion, and neither I nor the government will ask it of them. But time and time again the opposition expresses that sentiment.

Earlier this year, I understand, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Interior residents lacked perspective for opposing resource projects. It’s a particular attitude, one that they have brought to the carbon tax debate.

[1105]

If they are indeed still steadfast in their opposition to the carbon tax’s revenue neutrality, they should explain to rural British Columbians directly. Their determination shows how out of touch they are with the priorities in our region, in the north and the Interior. In the Okanagan, the opposition’s scheme would negatively affect the cost of shipping our great agricultural products, such as cherries, peaches and apples. It would make life more expensive.

The opposition criticized our government for freezing the carbon tax. They promised to raise the carbon tax $10 a year, every year, and have promised to “end the important revenue neutrality of the British Columbia carbon tax.” They want to increase the carbon tax and cancel those tax cuts spent — and spend the money to take from British Columbia families on their pet projects. Their proposal shows just how out of touch they are with the priorities of our region.

Every dollar generated by the revenue-neutral carbon tax is returned to British Columbians through reductions in other taxes and fees. The revenue-neutral aspect of the carbon tax is an important part of this, ensuring that the good intentions of British Columbians are not misused and not treated as a transfer for pet projects.

G. Heyman: I see we’re well entrenched now in a pre-election regime of alternate facts. If my friend the
[ Page 13843 ]
member for Vernon-Monashee had actually read the opposition’s clean growth climate action plan instead of simply the script that was placed before him this morning, he probably would have had a hard time getting some of the words that he spoke out of his mouth.

Let’s address the issues one by one. The issue of revenue neutrality. British Columbians don’t believe the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. You can ask anyone on the street, or at a gas pump: “Does the carbon tax feel revenue-neutral to you”? And their answer will be no. The answer is because they’re paying more and getting less under this Liberal government and this Premier.

Let’s look at the nature of the tax cuts that this government has associated with the carbon tax. This government currently gives almost twice as much in corporate and business tax cuts associated with the carbon tax than in personal income tax reduction. People are paying more and getting less.

Let’s look at the next so-called fact from the member for Vernon-Monashee, or the communications department of the government. The member says that we have alternately planned to bring in a $10-a-year carbon tax forever or that we’re raising the carbon tax to $50 by 2022. Well, it’s not our plan. The federal government has said that provinces will get their carbon tax to $50 a tonne by 2022 or the federal government will do it for them.

What we’re doing is putting a clear climate action plan and clean growth plan in front of British Columbian families and British Columbian businesses so people have stability and predictability, and they know exactly what’s coming. Further to that, we have said, unlike this government, that we will give a tax rebate to 80 percent of British Columbian families on top of the personal income tax cuts which they currently enjoy. That’s double what people get in rebates from this government.

Most people, under our plan, will be better off under a rising tax than they are today under the carbon tax that this government brought in a few years ago and now seems to want to disavow. Almost half of British Columbians will get more back in a rebate than they pay in the tax. Our tax will put more money in families’ pockets, plain and simple.

Let me move on to the claim that we’re going to reward the Lower Mainland’s so-called pet projects at the expense of the rest of the province. That’s simply not true. After we give the rebates, we intend to invest in energy efficiency in every community around British Columbia, creating good, skilled, high-paid jobs that will keep families together, and young people will have a future in every community in British Columbia.

[1110]

Transit investments in the Lower Mainland, as well as other parts of British Columbia, benefit the entire economy, because congestion in Metro Vancouver is costing the ability of resource industries to move their product to the port to the tune of over $1 billion a year. We have an infrastructure deficit.

On March 6, 2016, there was a poll which asked British Columbians about what use an increased carbon tax should be put to and what they supported the most. So 22 percent said infrastructure, 20 percent said research and development and clean technology, 19 percent said a dividend and only 16 percent said cutting taxes.

In the opposition, we listened to British Columbians. We listened to what the federal government said was going to happen to British Columbia, whether or not the Premier wants to pretend it won’t. We brought in a plan that will build jobs, support middle- and low-income families in British Columbia and cut carbon pollution — not stand by while it continues to rise. In short, better for families, better for the economy, better for climate and better for our future.

What do we get from the B.C. Liberals in this government? We get the pretence that they somehow have a veto over a carbon tax that’s coming when the Prime Minister and the federal Environment Minister have clearly said that they do not know what our Premier is talking about. So we’re telling business what’s coming. We’re telling families what’s coming, and we’ll make life better for them.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m proud today to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents to address this motion. Environment and climate change come up at the doorstep frequently when I’m out and about in the community.

British Columbia introduced North America’s first broad-based, revenue-neutral carbon tax on greenhouse gas emissions on July 1, 2008. We have since become known globally for our thoughtful and comprehensive approach to reducing carbon emissions.

In December 2014, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim praised B.C.’s carbon tax as one of the most powerful examples of carbon pricing. Our Premier was invited to the World Bank International Monetary Fund’s spring 2015 meetings in Washington, D.C. to speak to G20 finance ministers about B.C.’s carbon tax — the first time a Canadian Premier has ever been invited to speak at that forum.

In October 2015, B.C. was invited back by the IMF to attend the annual meetings of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund in Lima, Peru, where our Minister of Environment joined leaders from around the world in an energy pricing panel.

Further, in September 2016, B.C.’s carbon tax won the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change’s Momentum for Change Award and was hailed by the UN as an example worldwide for innovative carbon pricing. And, just this past November, I was delighted to see my friend and colleague the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky represent our government in Marrakech, Morocco, where our carbon tax was showcased at the UN Climate Change Conference.

All around the world, there is increasing recognition that B.C.’s carbon tax is a successful model to follow. I
[ Page 13844 ]
mention all of this because there is no shortage of evidence that our government has been a global leader in environmental policy and reducing emissions. More importantly, B.C. is showing that we can effectively reduce harmful emissions while growing the economy and creating jobs. We are Canada’s strongest economy and years ahead of the curve on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Best of all, our approach to carbon reduction is revenue-neutral. Every dollar generated by the carbon tax is returned to British Columbians through reductions in other taxes. This means that our approach, where tax reductions are applied broadly across individuals and industries, has protected overall economic growth while creating a powerful incentive to reduce GHG emissions.

Between fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and 2016 and ’17, the carbon tax raised almost $8.5 billion and returned more than an estimated $10.6 billion in tax reductions for businesses, individuals and families. These include almost $4.3 billion in tax cuts for individuals through measures such as the Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit — a 5 percent cut in the first two income tax rates — and up to $200 per year northern and rural homeowner benefit.

[1115]

Tax reductions for businesses have totalled almost $6.4 billion over this period and include measures like reducing the general corporate income tax rate, reducing the small business corporate income tax rate and reducing school property taxes by 50 percent for land classified as farm.

The Low Income Climate Tax Credit is paid quarterly to help offset the carbon tax. About 25 percent of all British Columbians receive this partial credit.

Based on the revenue and tax reduction estimates included in the carbon tax report released in February 2017, revenue neutrality has been met for 2015-16. In fact, the reduction in provincial revenue exceeded the $1.19 billion in carbon tax revenue by an estimated $539 million. The reduction in provincial revenue for 2016-17 is estimated to exceed carbon tax by $524 million.

Independent studies have found that since the implementation of the tax between 2008 and 2012, petroleum use in British Columbia dropped by 16 percent per capita, while it rose 3 percent per capita in the rest of Canada. The Murray and Rivers review of seven independent studies suggested that at $30 a tonne, the carbon tax has reduced emissions in the province by up to 15 percent.

We ask that the NDP support our carbon tax and the principle it stands upon — revenue neutrality.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the motion here today. In terms of when we look at the role of the carbon tax and in terms of the big picture and what is the concern that it’s addressing…. It’s shared by a majority of British Columbians and certainly people across the country and around the world, and this is the necessity of reducing carbon pollution and transitioning towards an economy that is less dependent on carbon and that is moving towards a clean-growth economy. So that’s the big picture.

When we look at the role of carbon pricing through the carbon tax and the issue of revenue neutrality, I want to just really clarify that in terms of remarks from our previous speaker. One, the claims of revenue neutrality for the carbon tax in British Columbia…. That’s simply not the case. We know that, currently, the money returning from the carbon tax benefits corporations. Clearly, two-thirds of the so-called revenue-neutrality measures go to corporations and one-third to everyone else. So who benefits from the revenues returned from the carbon tax? It is more benefits going towards corporations. That is clear.

The carbon tax is not revenue-neutral at all. In fact, the government gives out over half a billion dollars more in tax cuts than it brings in from the carbon tax revenue. So that’s one piece. One, it’s not accurate to say that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral in British Columbia.

Two, the benefits from the funds that are raised from the carbon tax predominantly go toward and benefit corporations.

The third point that is very important is looking at the goal of the carbon tax and the goal around reducing climate pollution in British Columbia and moving our economy to an economy that is based on clean technology, clean energy, clean growth and that reduces our dependency on carbon-based fossil fuels.

The NDP has tabled a climate action plan to address these components, to look at a plan that cuts pollution, that creates good jobs and that sees British Columbians across the province getting rebates and returning the benefits from corporations to British Columbians. That’s a very clear priority in terms of our climate action plan.

I wanted to also…. I guess it’s a news flash for folks on the government side, from comments that were raised earlier about claiming that it was the B.C. NDP that’s planning to raise carbon tax to $10 a year, $50 a year, up to $50 a tonne.

[1120]

Actually — news flash — it’s the federal government, Justin Trudeau, who has made the announcement that the federal government will be bringing in those targets and that it is provincial governments that will be getting in line whether they like it or not. Let’s just be clear on that.

Third, when we look at the role of the carbon tax, it should be taken in terms of the need to transition our economy. The role of conservation of energy is very clear, and the role of the need to invest in innovation and clean energy alternatives.

The B.C. NDP has tabled the PowerBC plan, which looks at bringing back conservation measures. The record of the B.C. Liberals: they cut a very successful conservation plan, LiveSmart B.C., which has shown to have a lot of takeup from British Columbians and moved towards
[ Page 13845 ]
conservation. This is a key component when we look at how we are going to reduce climate pollution in our province. Conservation is a key aspect, and it is lacking from our current plan from the B.C. Liberal government.

In addition, we need investment. Through PowerBC, we’re going to retrofit buildings — public buildings and also homes. That is the largest cause of carbon emissions in our economy. It surpasses transportation. So retrofitting buildings, having a plan to do that, and a focus on conservation is the way forward.

We know British Columbians are paying more and getting less under the B.C. Liberals. We have a plan to benefit British Columbians and reduce our dependency on carbon fuels.

M. Dalton: It’s a pleasure to stand here and speak in favour of this motion.

In 2008, our government made the decision to implement a tax on carbon. It was designed to help British Columbia reduce greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time be fair to hard-working families. To do that, by law, we made it — the carbon tax — revenue-neutral. What does it mean to have a revenue-neutral carbon tax? It means that every dollar collected from B.C. carbon tax is given back to taxpayers in the form of tax credits or tax cuts.

I know that the member for Vancouver-Kensington made a comment about it and tried to blame it on the federal government, as far as revenue neutrality. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have the option of how we wanted to bring this about, as far as a carbon tax. Our policy — it’s law — is to put it back into the pockets of taxpayers. We don’t see it as a slush fund, which it appears that the NDP sees it as. Since 2008, the carbon tax has raised almost $8.5 billion and returned more than $10.6 billion in tax reductions for businesses, individuals and families.

I keep on hearing the word “corporations” and that it’s terrible. The implication is that we need to tax it, that we need to get the money from that and transfer it over. Well, the fact of the matter is that business is foundational to the prosperity of British Columbians. Without business, you don’t have jobs.

It seems to me that the NDP doesn’t understand that. If you make business unaffordable, and they can’t make a profit, then they can’t invest. There’s no expansion. That’s what we’ve seen, time and time again, when the NDP has been in government. The purpose of the tax is to change behaviour, not penalize British Columbians by taking money out of their pockets.

Our carbon tax appears to be working. Independent studies have found that between 2008 and 2012, fuel use in B.C. dropped by 16 percent per capita. In 2015, a review of seven independent studies suggested that B.C.’s carbon tax has reduced emissions in the province by up to 15 percent. All of this has been accomplished without taking a dime off B.C. taxpayers.

Let’s take a moment and look at the proposal supported by our colleagues in the opposition NDP. The Leader of the Opposition says he wants to see B.C.’s carbon tax go up — for the revenue neutrality of the tax to end. We view this tax as a tool to change behaviour and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The NDP sees this as an opportunity to get their hands into the pockets of B.C. taxpayers.

[1125]

The NDP claims to be concerned about families, but what they propose would drain them financially, placing hardships upon British Columbians. The NDP wants to raise taxes on hard-working British Columbians in order to fund their pet projects. This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say back in 2015. He said: “We voted against the carbon tax because of the revenue neutrality.” Well, it can’t get any clearer than that. The NDP sees the carbon tax as just another opportunity to reach into the pockets of British Columbians to pay for their misguided, irresponsible and bureaucratic schemes that would do nothing to protect our environment.

Unlike the members on the other side of the House, we believe that British Columbians’ hard-earned money should stay in their pockets. While they will never admit it publicly, we know the NDP does not agree. They believe they know better how to spend people’s money than individuals do themselves.

The member for Victoria–Swan Lake a couple of weeks ago — when he was speaking at a nomination meeting for an NDP candidate, and he thought no one was listening — told the assembled crowd that the NDP would do whatever it took to fight against tax cuts to the middle class, saying, “We’ll see what’s in the budget this coming Tuesday, but her big idea” — referring to the Premier — “in the throne speech was a fresh round of tax cuts. We’re going to have to fight that.”

It’s hard to believe that the members of the NDP want to fight against reducing taxes for everyday British Columbians. They want to fight against making life more affordable for British Columbia families.

B. Ralston: I rise to address the motion before the House.

It is interesting to listen to members opposite reflect upon the history of the carbon tax and give themselves some plaudits. I understand that the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky was in Morocco taking a round of applause from UN officials and hear that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour talked about other occasions when the government has been praised in international fora.

It is striking, though, that the effort of the writers of the speeches for the members opposite do not seem to wish to stand with the federal government in their decision to raise the carbon price to $50 a tonne by 2022. We’ve heard that that somehow is something that the opposition has done or advocates.
[ Page 13846 ]

The fact is that Environment Minister McKenna and the Prime Minister, Mr. Justin Trudeau, have said very clearly that this is mandated by the federal government, and if provinces don’t want to do that, or decide not to do that, that it will be done for them. So the idea that a program for which the members opposite take great credit and great pride in — that somehow they’re not going to participate in what the federal Liberal government has to extend that program across the country…. It’s somewhat bizarre.

But that is motivated by their wish, as always, to attack and distort the positions of the official opposition. Sad, but it seems to be what members opposite are engaged in today.

The simple definition of revenue neutrality — I don’t think it’s terribly complicated — is that the revenue taken in by tax will equal the revenue outgoing on other programs so that the savings will accrue to others on those outgoing programs. But as has been clearly demonstrated here and acknowledged by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, the tax is not revenue-neutral.

In fact, the government has given out, in her calculation…. This is on page 66 of the Budget 2017. She says 534. My calculation is 525 more in tax reductions than the tax took in. So it’s not revenue-neutral. It gives out far more in tax reductions than it takes in. That’s a different definition of revenue neutrality than a dictionary definition or, one would assume, in common sense, where there’s a balance between the cut and the revenue.

[1130]

Initially, and again here in the House today, the B.C. Liberals have talked about the implementation of the plan back in 2008. The structure of the tax rebates, or tax reductions, was very different in 2008 than it is now. Initially, the revenue-neutral plan was split — approximately one-third to personal income tax cuts, approximately one-third to corporate income tax cuts and approximately one-third to a low-income tax credit. A rough balance, and that was part of the method by which the scheme was put together and debated and sold to the public back at that point.

The members here have reflected back on that time. But what has taken place over time is that there’s been an internal shift in the allocation of the tax reductions. In fact, over 65 percent of the allocation of the reductions now goes to business tax cuts and only 11 percent to low-income tax rebates. The initial one-third, one-third, one-third has shifted very dramatically, in a way that is unacknowledged by the members opposite and, I think, deserves some correction.

When the member for Vernon-Monashee says, “Well, people in my riding won’t get any of the benefits of this,” in fact, the NDP plan, the official opposition plan, will address that.

What will happen….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

G. Kyllo: On behalf of my constituents in Shuswap, I strongly support this motion. Our approach to climate action is one that is recognized Canada-wide and around the world. It is both fair and balanced. It recognizes that we have the responsibility to protect our environment and a responsibility to hard-working people in communities across B.C. They should be able to keep more of their money in their pockets.

Our carbon tax was implemented on July 1 of 2008 and covers about 70 percent of provincial emissions. Our approach, a revenue-neutral carbon tax approach where tax reductions are applied broadly across individuals and industries, has protected overall economic growth, while creating a powerful incentive to reduce those emissions.

Our actions are recognized internationally. In 2014, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim praised B.C.’s carbon tax as one of the most powerful examples of carbon pricing. B.C.’s carbon tax has been profiled in The Economist, the New York Times and the L.A. Times as a leading environmental policy. In November 2016, B.C.’s carbon tax was showcased at the UN Climate Change Conference in Morocco. In September 2016, B.C.’s carbon tax won the UN framework convention on climate change’s Momentum for Change Award and was hailed by the UN as an example of worldwide innovative carbon pricing.

While these international recognitions are fantastic, we do this work to protect British Columbia’s environment. Unfortunately, our NDP colleagues on the other side of the House have a very different idea. Their idea, the NDP plan, reveals that they want to hike the carbon tax by another $20, scrap tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses.

We have provided significant supports for lower- and middle-class British Columbians, with two million British Columbians currently paying no MSP premiums at all — our most recent announcement on a further reduction of MSP premiums for those earning up to $120,000 a year. We want to keep that money that we spend in the hands and pockets of taxpayers in British Columbia.

The Premier says that people in Terrace would not have to pay more carbon tax at the pumps than people in Toronto, and I could not agree more. The NDP scheme for massive tax increase would put British Columbians out of work in our resource and transportation sectors.

We have to focus on the competitive advantage we have here in B.C. We have led the way, and we need to watch and see that other jurisdictions come to the table and actually start to implement carbon plans similar to the leadership we’ve shown in British Columbia.

[1135]

British Columbians need to ask who will wind up paying for all of the increased charges that the NDP have
[ Page 13847 ]
identified. Which industries? What small businesses in your community? Natural gas, mining and forestry could all be on the chopping block, along with the thousands who depend on these sectors for their livelihood. This is not what I call leadership. I think this is taking British Columbians for granted to pay for things they know that they cannot afford.

British Columbia is a wonderful place to live, and I think that people live in B.C. for very many reasons: the ability to get a good, family-paying job; the chance to own their own home; the chance to keep more of their hard-earned money.

B.C. is the envy of other jurisdictions across Canada, leading Canada in economic growth, leading Canada in job creation, having the lowest unemployment rate in the country for the last eight months consecutively. We’re first in Canada, with the lowest unemployment rate, and the major reason for this is because we have focused on respecting the taxpayer.

Let’s stick to the plan. Let’s be global leaders in climate action but still look out for the people in our province. I strongly support this motion, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the House to do that as well.

G. Holman: Very pleased to speak to this motion today and hear the comments from members opposite. You know, one little problem with the carbon tax as currently applied by the Liberal government is that, actually, it doesn’t work. It was interesting to hear members quoting data from 2008 to 2012. Since 2012, for five years, emissions have been going up. We thought, on this side of the House — mistakenly, apparently — that the purpose of the carbon tax was to drive emissions down. That’s not working.

Of course, the Liberal government understands this, because they’ve abandoned their 2020 target for greenhouse gas emission reductions in British Columbia. They’ve refused to implement a target for 2030. You know when their next target kicks in? It’s 2050. So the government clearly understands that their carbon tax is not working on protecting the environment, as they so pronounce.

In terms of the revenue neutrality issue, just to be absolutely clear, our plan will maintain all personal income tax reductions associated with the existing carbon tax. All of the rebates from our plan — 100 percent of those rebates — will go to families, which is not the case now. What we have now is 65 percent of the tax reductions associated with the carbon tax going to corporations. Only 11 percent of the rebates go to low-income tax earners, and as pointed out by my colleague, that’s a drastic shift from the original proposals in 2008.

Basically, families in British Columbia are going to be better off as a result of our plan. So 80 percent of families in British Columbia will receive a rebate associated with the carbon tax, and 50 percent of the families in British Columbia will be better off. Their carbon tax rebate will be actually higher than the estimated tax that they pay.

It is very interesting to hear members opposite cry crocodile tears about tax increases. Are you kidding me? Over the tenure of this government, increases in MSP premiums, in ICBC rates, in hydro rates, in tuition fees and in ferry fares have taken thousands of dollars out of the incomes of average families in this province. Just absurd that Liberals don’t increase taxes. They just don’t like to call it a tax increase.

Public support. Seventy percent of British Columbians believe that we need to be acting more aggressively to reduce climate emissions in British Columbia. And a strong majority support reinvesting those revenues into GHG-emission-reducing actions and clean tech, which is exactly what we’re proposing.

[1140]

Climate action is a good investment. Unlike Site C — a $9 billion white elephant that will pay itself off in 70 years — most climate action measures have a payback of a maximum of ten years. It’s a good investment.

Economists like Mark Jaccard and organizations like the Pembina Institute say our plan will work, say the current Liberal plan is not working at all. We can also generate jobs.

The LiveSmart program — which this government kiboshed over 2008 to 2014; $110 million investment — generated between $850 million and $950 million in incremental economic activity and created between 8,500 and over 14,000 years of employment. Climate action measures are a good investment, and they are good for our economy.

D. Ashton: I stand in this House today to support this motion.

Just before I start, I just want to say something off my heart. For me to be able to be in here and listen to each one of us speak…. We all believe in what we’re saying, and this House allows us to do that. It doesn’t necessarily say that we’re right or wrong; it allows us the opportunity in this incredible democratic place to say what we believe in. Whether there’s chitter back and forth and that, it allows us to say it in a democratic process. To me, that’s what’s most remarkable about this incredible province and this incredible country that we all call home.

British Columbia is a leader in many categories in this wonderful country of Canada, and today more people are working in this province than ever before. We are leading the country in economic growth. We are first in Canada with the lowest unemployment rate, and we are leaders in Canada and around the world in our approach to the environment.

We have North America’s first broad-base implemented revenue-neutral carbon tax on greenhouse emissions, which took place, if I remember correctly, in early July 2008. Our approach is a revenue-neutral carbon
[ Page 13848 ]
tax approach where tax reductions are applied broadly across individuals and industry. It has protected overall economic growth while creating a powerful incentive to look after those emissions that none of us want to see progress into the future.

The carbon tax sends a consistent price signal and ensures those who produce emissions pay for them and makes clean energy alternatives more economically attractive.

Every dollar generated by the carbon tax is returned to British Columbians through a reduction in other taxes. I just wanted to say — and it’s been touched on by other members — that under the Carbon Tax Act, the Minister of Finance must present a carbon tax report that includes the current and previous fiscal years and a carbon tax plan for the next three fiscal years in the budget.

Carbon tax revenue for 2016-17 is estimated to be $1.2 billion. Reductions in personal and business tax for 2016-17 are estimated at approximately $1.7 billion. Revenue from carbon tax for 2015-16 was $1.19 billion, and estimated cost of tax reductions was just over $1.7 billion. A reduction in the provincial revenue exceeded the carbon tax by approximately $539 million, a phenomenal amount of money that stays in people’s pockets.

B.C. continues to be recognized as a leader in climate action. We’ve heard how President Jim Yong praised British Columbia’s carbon tax as being one of the most powerful examples in carbon tax pricing. As a climate leader, we’re showing that we can reduce harmful emissions while, meanwhile, growing the economy and creating good-paying jobs.

This is positive action. It is also leadership. We all must take care and protect our environment, but we also must look out for hard-working B.C. families all across this wonderful province.

The opposition’s approach to environmental leadership has questions, and I’m sure that many will question it into the future. But they’re simply, the way I see it, an additional grab of taxation. Some people will say that user fees are taxation, and other people will say they’re not. But there is an appropriate direction that is taking place and being proposed where it will be an increase in taxations on all hard-working individuals in this wonderful province.

I absolutely believe this, and I really think these substantial increases will put many British Columbians out of work in our resource, transportation and many other industries in this province. It would raise the price of everything transported by truck.

[1145]

Just think about it. Just think that your weekly groceries come in by vehicles. Your essentials are transported by truck, especially for those of us that live above Hope. You don’t want to even think about it. Many, many school supplies that are distributed all across British Columbia are transported by truck. This takes more and more money out of families’ pockets.

I really think that the opposition’s plan that they have put forward so far is not very good and — I’ll put a quotation behind that — a bit cynical.

I really think it should be broken down into a couple of easy questions. Do we continue to be a respected leader in the environment, especially on carbon pricing? And do we want to continue our balanced approach where families can keep their hard-earned money? I emphatically say the answer to those two questions is yes. Our government’s approach is to always try and find a way to get to yes, because it’s the right thing to do.

I’m incredibly proud to support this motion that has been put forward, especially in regards to climate leadership and also the leadership that British Columbia is showing not only to this country but all around the world.

D. Eby: It is remarkable to hear members of this House say that because they believe something, then certainly they should say whatever it is, even if it’s not true. The members on the other side know very well that this plan leaves the majority of British Columbians better off than before it was introduced. They have more money to take home. To hear them say again and again that that’s not a fact…. It is a fact, and I wish that to be recorded in the Hansard.

It’s hard to imagine a province more affected than British Columbia by climate change. People who live in the Lower Mainland…. Go outside the Lower Mainland for a drive, and you will quickly see in the forests that there’s a problem. It’s a problem that people outside the Lower Mainland have spotted for a long time — swaths of brown trees. Why are the trees brown? Because the pine beetle is killing the trees — because it can now overwinter way further south than it was ever able to do because our winters are warmer.

The loss of these forests means a loss of jobs, a loss of revenue to the province and more spending trying to control this invasive insect. So we’re losing money in the forest industry; we’re losing jobs in the forest industry.

Anyone who loves seafood should be worried. Shellfish farmers say it’s harder than ever to do aquaculture in the province because of the acidification of the ocean because of carbon pollution. The shells dissolve. It makes it really difficult for them to do their work, and they’re not sure they’re going to be able to continue to do their work if these trends continues. Our prized salmon — the streams are too warm for them to return. It’s affecting salmon populations.

If you go out into the rotunda out there, you’ll see there are paintings up in the dome of the major industries in British Columbia. There’s a picture of a lumberjack up there, and there’s a picture of somebody fishing as well. These are two of the major industries in British Columbia, honoured in art in our Legislature, taking a major hit under climate change.
[ Page 13849 ]

When we have a debate about the climate tax, the carbon tax and what we should be doing, let’s take it seriously in terms of the consequences of not reducing emissions in this province, which is something that’s been happening for the last five years. Our emissions have been going steadily up, higher and higher, and this government has abandoned their commitments to hit their climate targets. We didn’t make these up. They made them up, and they are not hitting those targets.

Where is the carbon tax actually going? Is it revenue-neutral? Can we do better? Government says it’s revenue-neutral, but even this government’s good pals down at the Fraser Institute — not some left-wing spokesgroup, the Fraser Institute — says that this government’s carbon tax isn’t revenue-neutral. Yet again member after member stands up, saying: “Oh yes, our revenue-neutral carbon tax.” Well, ask your friends at the Fraser Institute how revenue-neutral it is.

A two-income family of four earning $90,000 pays an extra 32 bucks while a two-income family of four earning $60,000 pays an extra $104 under the revenue-neutral carbon plan. Ask those families, and they’ll tell you exactly what’s happening.

The question is: can we do better? Yes, we can do better. The official opposition has put forward a constructive plan that leaves the vast majority of families with more money in their pockets. Rebates allow them to shift their spending from carbon-intensive spending into carbon-reduced spending.

When we look at what happens with the remainder of the money that’s not refunded to families, it goes into what people actually think the carbon tax is used for in this province. You ask people: “Where does the carbon tax go?” “Well, it’s got to be like MSP. I guess it goes to reducing carbon pollution.” No, it doesn’t.

[1150]

I just have to pause to remind…. We hear about schemes from the other side. It was this government that brought us the Pacific Carbon Trust that took revenue, that took money from schools and hospitals to invest in non-existent carbon reduction programs. That was this government. So if you want to talk about schemes, this government knows schemes.

Let me tell you that in my constituency, this would invest in real programs to improve transit so that people who want to get on the bus can actually get on a bus, instead of getting passed by a full bus. It means they can leave their car at home. In other constituencies, it means investing in carbon-reducing technology, which means investing in us becoming a leader in clean tech right across the province and internationally. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?

Corvus Energy, a Richmond firm, makes batteries for ferries to reduce emissions, reducing emissions all around the world — except where? In British Columbia. Their batteries are not in our ferries reducing emissions here at home. That’s the kind of thing that we can do to both create jobs and reduce emissions right here at home with this program.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Ask anyone on the street or at the gas pump if this program is revenue-neutral for their family. They will tell you it’s not. We can do better, and we should stop pretending that it’s working when it’s not.

J. Sturdy: I do appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to my colleague’s motion regarding the revenue-neutral nature of our carbon tax. Last fall our province was awarded, as has been referenced, the United Nations Momentum for Change Award, which showcases innovative and transformative solutions that address climate change challenges. I had the privilege of accepting that award on behalf of British Columbia. The United Nations identified the revenue-neutral aspect of the British Columbia carbon tax with special consideration:

“Organizations such as the World Bank and the United Nations have identified British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax as a model to follow. The carbon tax is a textbook example of how to get carbon pricing right, says the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Other jurisdictions across the world have either contacted British Columbia to learn more about the tax or referenced B.C.’s success.”

It is the revenue-neutral carbon tax that’s the focus of this award, not a carbon tax where revenues are funnelled into pet projects, picking winners and losers and taking bets with public money. The UN goes on to say:

“Aided by policies like British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax, the clean-tech sector has experienced steady growth. The West Coast Clean Economy: 2010-2014 Jobs Update notes that B.C. has 68,165 clean-economy jobs, a 12.5 percent increase since 2010. The update also found that B.C.’s clean-economy GDP rose to $6.31 billion by 2014, a 19.3 percent increase from 2010.”

British Columbia’s carbon tax is the first, highest and most comprehensive in North America. Since 2008, it has shown that it is possible to grow the economy and to create jobs while reducing emissions. Indeed, British Columbia has Canada’s strongest economy. Statistics Canada information repeatedly shows that our province continues to lead Canada in job creation and economic growth.

In 2015, the Premier was invited to the World Bank–IMF spring meetings in Washington, D.C., to speak to G20 finance ministers about our revenue-neutral carbon tax. If I am not mistaken — I don’t believe I am — this was the first time that a Canadian Premier has been invited to speak at that forum. The Minister of Environment, whom I am very privileged to work with, in October 2015, was invited by the IMF to meetings in Lima, Peru, joining leaders from around the world to discuss energy pricing.

[1155]

I also want to direct members to remarks made by World Bank president Jim Yong Kim in December 2014,
[ Page 13850 ]
where he praised B.C.’s carbon tax as “one of the most powerful” examples of carbon pricing. British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax has been gaining attention around the world for its innovative solution to a common problem.

This is the very revenue-neutral aspect that the opposition seems to consistently oppose. I believe the Leader of the Opposition said: “We voted against the carbon tax because of its revenue neutrality.”

In fact, other members of the opposition have, time and time and time again, taken aim at the revenue-neutral nature of the carbon tax, including rebates. I note the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill said: “Now, I know it’s become controversial to say this, but really there’s no better way to describe it. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.” I believe she must have been paraphrasing her mentor Republican Senator McCain, but that’s another story.

It is particular that they are now advocating a rebate aspect as part of the climate scheme. Be it pigs or rebates or tax in general, time and time again, I come away convinced that the opposition know not what they think.

Despite the rhetoric from the opposition, the reality is that around the world there is increasing recognition that revenue-neutral carbon taxes are successful models to follow. And yes, the revenue-neutral character is essential. I believe that British Columbians are willing to lead on the reduction of harmful emissions but that goodwill should never be used as a guise to divert funds away and into pet projects. That’s why….

Madame Speaker: Noting the hour, if you would be so kind as to move adjournment of the debate.

J. Sturdy moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada