Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

B.C.’s ENERGY EXPORT ECONOMY

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

Today we’re discussing energy exports. In doing so, I can’t help but first reflect on the past. If we were talking about Canadian exports even 15 years ago, we would have been discussing the other jurisdictions in Canada and our neighbour to the east in particular. Canadian energy exports weren’t diverse. They didn’t benefit B.C., and they definitely did not benefit First Nations.

This is the context that the 2001 government inherited and one which they either tried to remedy or laid the foundations for a more certain future. There are two general strategies here: extracting energy and exporting it. It’s unfortunate that today we only seem to be talking about exports that are politically correct. LNG, of course, is the acceptable…. But any other energy exports are opposed, while we turn a blind eye to our neighbours to the south exporting the same product.

The previous government changed the conversation on energy in this province in 2012, and we’re all better for it. We understand the incredible benefits projects like LNG will bring to all British Columbians and to First Nations in particular. We believe that the status quo as it relates to First Nations must be changed, and it is being changed as we speak, especially when they have been included at the table for the better part of the last 15 years.

Any opponents to this motion are saying to First Nations: “You have to live with the unemployment, and you have to live with your poverty.” I have never stood with these people and never will, because First Nations finally have an answer to crippling dependence. The Indian Act suffocates First Nations when it comes to poverty reduction. It leaves no path forward. If there is any slip-up whatsoever, Ottawa comes in to take over the remedial management, third-party management or their freeze lists. This is something I’ve seen happen, and it’s been a reality for years, if not decades.

Instead, the way forward is partnerships with government and industry enabled by constitutional case law, like the nearly 500 agreements that the past government, the last B.C. government, signed with First Nations, inclusive of a number of resource areas, many of which made LNG possible today.

Energy export is a solution before us. It’s the solution we’re pursuing, and it’s the solution that’s going to work for all of us. When we support the energy export industry in B.C., we empower First Nations and vice versa. But let’s look at the future potential. When we support the energy export industry in B.C., we support what is anticipated to create up to $1 trillion in economic activity and as many as 100,000 jobs in B.C. over the next 30 years.

[10:10 a.m.]

The LNG industry will bring billions in new investment and provincial tax revenue to B.C. With this will come thousands of jobs within the sector and without. I’ve lived this story for the last 15 years, and it’s exactly what my riding of Skeena has been asking for.

LNG, of course, isn’t all we export here in B.C. The previous government worked diligently to establish out a diversified export industry, a network of boats, trains, planes and automobiles all working together to improve efficiency and capacity in our export sector.

The benefits of the program are clear, both at Port Metro Vancouver and at Port of Prince Rupert. Port of Prince Rupert has up to a several-day reduction in shipping time to Asia markets when compared to other ports on the Pacific coast due to its geographical location.

The potential, clearly, is huge. It would be to our own benefit to provide it with all the support it requires. Energy export will be foundational to the future economy of British Columbia. It’s also the future of British Columbians, of the First Nations in British Columbia.

As we move forward, we must do so with the utmost care and accountability but also with the utmost efficiency. Every step of the way, the public needs to be informed of how their future is manifesting. The official opposition will continue to hold the government to account on this matter, as it did just a few days ago. The chance to become a leader in energy export is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. To do so, we must throw our support behind the industry that handles it.

Finally, we cannot allow anyone to quash this future for British Columbians — not the government today, not the federal government, not the governments of tomorrow, not money flowing from the south of the border and not a contingent of British Columbians who have never even set foot on the land they purport to protect. If we stand together with our partners in industry and with British Columbians, our province will soon realize its full energy export potential.

S. Malcolmson: Speaking as a representative of the riding of Nanaimo and a long-time elected representative of supporting and protecting the coast, the energy export debate is a troublesome one. We have moved over the last ten years or so into an export regime which is, in our neighbourhood on the south coast, an unrefined product.

It used to be that in Burnaby there were five refineries. This was part of the economy, part of the workforce. The energy exports that moved out of Burrard Inlet and through the Salish Sea were low in number and carrying a refined product.

What we found in 2011, when we had a couple of near misses of oil spills from bulk freighters in the Salish Sea, was that, in fact, the oil spill response regime had not moved to increase the environmental safety net necessary to protect the jobs and economy of the coast that are dependent on a clean coast.

When I was the chair of the Islands Trust Council — which is a 26-member regional government, akin to a regional district with a particular mandate in legislation to preserve and protect the unique amenities and environment of the islands in the Salish Sea, 465 islands — we found, to our dismay, that the product now moving out of Burrard Inlet, being exported — the energy export, Alberta product — through British Columbia’s land and now through its waters is largely an unrefined bitumen product.

So we dug deeper and deeper and sent letters to the federal government, met with provincial officials when the B.C. Liberal government was the one that was in power provincially, saying: “What can we do to strengthen our local safety net?” Here we are today still without the strength in oil spill response on the south coast. We are relying on an unrefined product without the value added, without the refinery jobs — and, therefore, a product that’s more dangerous to the environment.

This is part of my letter to the federal Minister of Transport in 2011. “Is enough known about the fate and effects of unconventional oil in brackish or sediment-laden waters and ocean saline waters to predict how diluted bitumen or unconventional oils will behave in the Salish Sea? In the event that spilled unconventional oil sinks, what plans exist to find and remove it from the vibrant habitat on the seabed of the Salish Sea?” and on. We asked a dozen questions in this 2011 letter.

[10:15 a.m.]

I’m very proud that our provincial government has made a strong commitment in the 2017 election campaign and has carried it through to pressure the federal government to use all tools to strengthen our response system. When energy is being exported through our waters, we want to have the strongest environmental safety net in place.

I note that the now chair of Islands Trust Council, Peter Luckham, wrote in April of last year to our Environment Minister here, the NDP minister, saying that those questions written to Transport Canada federally in 2011 remain largely unanswered. So there’s common cause here, with local government and the provincial government urging the federal government to use all tools when we are exporting energy through our province to have the strongest safety net in place.

I note the B.C. government’s January of this year submission to the National Energy Board said: “The enhanced response regime falls short of meeting world-leading standards.” And then: “The province has found no compelling evidence on the record that suggests that it will meet or exceed international best practices.”

This is a concern that’s shared by our Washington state partners because if there is an oil spill in our waters, it will not respect international boundaries. Then we will be, in effect, exporting risk and pollution into another jurisdiction.

I’m proud that we’re pushing as hard as we can to strengthen the environmental safety net, and I’m proud that we are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to invest in the green jobs of the future. It is our profound hope, as a government, that what we are exporting in the future are the technology, the jobs and the know-how to meet the highest oil spill response standards and also the renewable jobs that will really generate a future economy for B.C. and for the coast.

E. Ross: As former chief councillor of the Haisla Nation council, I know how important shipping is to B.C. and to, particularly, First Nations. But you can’t isolate energy exports when we’re talking about the safety of B.C.’s coasts, when we’re talking about all types of vessels that carry different types of fuels that actually could put our coast at danger.

I’m talking about gillnetters. I’m talking about seine boats. I’m talking about tugboats. I’m talking about ferries that all go down and could put the ecosystem in danger. I’m also talking about B.C. Ferries. It’s not right that we talk about energy exports and just isolate them in their own little world, when the shipping industry is actually well aware of all the issues related to the B.C. coast.

In fact, for the last 15 years, that’s all First Nations have been doing is participating in environmental assessments at the federal level, dealing with consultations, dealing with the process that the federal government comes out with. The consensus along the coast was that spill protection was a need. It had to be enhanced, not just for energy exports. It had to be done for all of the people that use the west coast. There are many of them, many of which haven’t even been looked at in the light that it’s now being looked under — specifically, U.S. vessels carrying oil and diesel right through our Inside Passage to and from Alaska. So it’s a good thing that safety is now a priority.

It’s always been a priority for First Nations in the world of environmental assessments and permitting. This is why I say, and I’ll keep saying it, that when you support the energy export industry, you support B.C. First Nations, because First Nations have done so much to higher the level of protection when we’re talking about B.C.’s coasts, whether you’re talking about exports or not.

The link is strengthening, and that must continue in the years to come. The approach to export has to be multifaceted, because the competition is growing fiercer by the day. Many jurisdictions are reducing their taxes and creating welcoming environments. Our neighbours to the south even want our clean LNG at a discount so they can export it to Asia. They don’t experience the fully-funded push back from activists that actually are born and raised in their own backyard. Instead, U.S. activists come to Canada and B.C. because they have an incredibly slick campaign that is designed to get Canadians to shut down Canadian exports, and it’s working.

[10:20 a.m.]

This tremendous export opportunity with a head start in LNG, in particular, is fleeting, and we will need to fight for it if we want it to take hold. The energy export economy of B.C.’s future will be as robust as it will be sustainable, and it will bring prosperity to all British Columbians and B.C. First Nations alike. But we’ve got to want it, and we’ve got to fight for it.

SANITARY PRODUCTS

M. Dean: Well, it’s a fact of life and a natural occurrence, not optional or controllable: having periods, a universal monthly or so inconvenience to be managed. Yet for some people, it’s a time of stress and major concern.

Many people don’t have access to menstrual products. People living in poverty, for example, have to choose between products and utility bills or food. Nobody should have to choose between feeding their family and affording basic hygiene products, but that is a choice that many British Columbians have to make every month. Almost a quarter of Canadian women say they have struggled to afford menstrual products for themselves or their children. Almost 60 percent of local community organizations say that they’re asked for free menstrual products, but most can’t provide them.

The stigma and taboo around menstruation can also result in people not asking for products or not purchasing them, especially trans women. People suffer shaming and bullying that can impact their regular routine and put them at a further disadvantage. I heard this only yesterday, and it has been going on for generations: students have had to hide away their products in tiny little pockets in their bags and their satchels because boys still go into girls’ bags and pull out their sanitary items, and they ridicule them just for having them.

Not having access to appropriate products can cause significant disadvantage like missing school, sports, extracurricular activities or work shifts contributing to community and the economy. We know that one in seven students have missed school due to having their periods. I met with Cassidy yesterday; she’s a student from Belmont high school. She told me that she and all of her friends have left school early at some point due to issues related to a lack of available period products. She herself even had to call her uncle one day.

A friend of mine who’s a young woman electrician grew up in a single-parent home where money was tight. She told me: “Even at a young age, I knew money was tight. When I got my period, mom made a big deal about me becoming a woman. It was really sweet. But I knew it was just another expense. Even a couple of years out of high school, when I was apprenticing at the yard and we finally got tampon machines, I remember using my screwdriver to jimmy the lock to grab a few to get me to payday. Free products would have meant less worry, stress, shame. It’s just another unnecessary barrier put in our way.”

Clearly, we need a safer and more inclusive system, and we need to make sure that everyone has access to the health products they need. Those who have periods have rights to access health products. In taking action, we can reduce stigma and get rid of the taboo so that we can all talk about reproductive health. I’m very proud that our government has announced that we will ensure that all students in public schools and people living in poverty can access menstrual products for free.

The Minister of Education has signed a ministerial order that requires all school districts to make sure that students can access free menstrual products in school washrooms. The order takes effect immediately, and boards have until the end of the calendar year to comply. As the minister said: “Students should never have to miss school, extracurricular, sports or social activities because they can’t afford or don’t have access to menstrual pro­ducts. This is a commonsense step forward that is long overdue. We look forward to working with school districts and communities to make sure students get the access they need, with no stigma and no barriers.”

Now, we know that most school districts already provide no-cost access to menstrual products. However, they’re usually in administrative or counselling offices. Indeed, it’s often individual teachers purchasing the items personally and making them available to students. This not only results in an unfair and ad hoc system; it also means that students have to get to another part of the school and that they have to ask an adult for the products. Can you imagine the barriers that that puts in place for our students?

[10:25 a.m.]

I heard this again yesterday from Cassidy, that students don’t have the time. They’re going to have to lose time in the classroom to be able to navigate their way through the school precinct to actually get to where they know there’s a sympathetic teacher who’s going to be able to provide them with a product. It’s stressful for them when they know that they need to go and access some products somewhere on the school premises, when they actually are really committed to and want to be in class and actively engaged in their learning.

As school districts engage with their students on what their individual needs and preferences are, there will be reduced barriers and enhanced access. We know that districts already provide toilet paper. You don’t expect each of us to take our own into the washroom with us, do you? Now these necessary products will be provided in washrooms for everyone who needs them, when they need them.

Our government has also engaged with FNESC about this new policy, and we’re going to look at what it means for First Nations schools. Cassidy told me that every day she and her friends are sending and receiving texts asking if anyone has spare menstrual products with them at school. Nowadays many students keep boxes of spares in their lockers. They know they should be concentrating on their classes, not on the logistics of getting products to students who need them. She wanted me to know that she is delighted with our government’s initiative and that it’ll help so many of her friends and the other students in school.

D. Davies: I’m honoured here today to rise on behalf of the official opposition, as well as the Education critic, to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity. As a former schoolteacher and a proud father of a teenaged girl, I appreciate the recent steps that the government has taken to provide students with free menstrual products at school. Everybody in this House knows that the cost of menstrual products presents a significant barrier to many young women. These barriers can be cost-related or as a result of stigma attached to menstruation.

As a former teacher in Fort St. John, I have seen firsthand girls that have missed out on extracurricular activities, social activities and even classes, all because they did not have a pad or a tampon. So I definitely believe in the idea put forth by the parliamentary secretary. It is a good one, and we all support it on this side.

Our province has made significant progress in making menstrual products more affordable. For example, in 2013, the previous government eliminated the PST on them. I appreciate that this government is going to be working closely with partners in communities and schools to ensure that this approach is tailored to the individual school districts. Again as a former teacher, there’s always more that we want to do for our students, who we spend, as teachers, most of our days with.

However, as the Leader of the Third Party mentioned when he was questioning the Minister of Education just last month, school boards are indeed strapped for cash. This is a great policy, and we want to make sure that it carries on beyond the $300,000 that the government has given as initial start-up funding. Some of the language in the press release about asking school boards to comply raises some red flags for us on this front. We want to ensure that any school board that isn’t financially able to continue with the program once the initial funding runs out is able to do so after. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that.

There are a few questions that need to be answered about whether or not this is part of a broader plan. The $95,000 grant to United Way seems to be at least partially geared toward this, with the money going toward menstrual products to non-profits as well as funding research, but the details are still vague.

Providing these products in schools is great for teens, but is there a possibility for this initiative to be extended even beyond high school? Is there also going to be a similar effort put in place for, maybe, universities or colleges? What would these potential strategies look like? What about making the products tax-deductible? This strategy would benefit anybody who requires these products, whether they’re students still living at home or adults in the workforce.

Again, I do not want to try and downplay the parliamentary secretary’s statement, but it is important that we do not leave anyone out of this great initiative. After all, this is fundamentally an issue of equality, equality between genders, as well as equal access for these products for all who need them. A well-planned and fiscally prudent strategy would be more than worth the cost.

[10:30 a.m.]

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

Since we made this announcement, there has been a great response on social media. Loads of students and parents have been really applauding this move, and they’ve also been opening up as to how this is going to make a difference in their lives straightaway. The attention on social media is breaking down the stigma. It’s encouraging discussion about menstruation and the need for sanitary products, which all contributes to removing barriers and supporting everyone who needs them having access to these products.

With universal, non-stigmatized access to menstrual products, ultimately women and young women and people who have periods are healthy. They have their needs met. They have a healthy attitude to the natural process of menstruation. This builds positive self-image, and they have a healthy attitude to their bodies. Women, young women, people who have periods will continue to engage in their daily activities and are productive and fulfilled. This can be work, hobbies, family life, school — all of this, regardless of their menstrual cycle.

“The cost and availability of menstrual products is a real concern for those who are poor and often face the choice of purchasing those products or buying other essentials, like food,” said the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

Today I pitch this challenge to all businesses, workplaces, public spaces. What can you do to reduce the stigma and barriers to people who need menstrual products? Can you provide free and accessible items in your place of work or business? To you, hon. Speaker, to members here in chambers: who can you work with? Who can you influence to take the step to offer free menstrual products where and when they are needed?

SERVICES FOR VICTIMS
OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

J. Thornthwaite: Between 10 and 38 percent of high school students have been victims of dating violence. Among students who are currently dating, as many as 59 percent have experienced physical violence, and 96 percent have experienced psychological or emotional abuse — 96 percent.

Adults who use violence with their dating partners often began doing so during adolescence, with the first episode typically occurring by the age of 15. Young women between the ages of 14 and 17 represent 38 percent of those victimized by date rape, and rapes by acquaintances account for 60 percent of all rapes reported to the rape crisis centres.

The most recent McCreary Centre study said that compared to five years previously, males were less likely to have been verbally sexually harassed in the last year, but females were more likely to have had this experience, and physical sexual harassment increased from 2013 to 2018.

Sexual assault resistance programs like Flip the Script have been shown to substantially reduce completed and attempted rapes. This is the only program available that has been evaluated in a clinical trial and shown to significantly reduce the incidence of rape and other forms of sexual assault for at least one year.

It is one critical piece of a comprehensive strategy to address the high incidence of rape and other forms of sexual violence on campuses. It targets 16- to 24-year-olds. It emphasizes that it is never the victim’s fault if they are sexually assaulted, and the only person who is ever responsible is the person who chooses to commit a sexual assault. It teaches girls to support and believe friends who are survivors. And it is based on the assumption that college women are most likely to be sexually assaulted by a person that they know and trust.

The skills imparted by Flip the Script allow women to fully participate in a college social experience, complete with friendships and dating, while simultaneously maximizing their safety. But we know that university is too late. Many boys have already learned what they can get away with by high school.

Forty to 50 percent of rape victims are under the age of 19. Dating violence is on the rise in B.C. schools, and police reported that sexual assaults rose 32 percent among high school–age victims in the months after Me Too. This suggests that there’s a serious and a pre-existing problem.

[10:35 a.m.]

Safe Dates is the leading evidence-based program proven to reduce incidence of teen dating violence. This engaging, interactive curriculum uses stories and role plays that reflect current topics and has shown a 56 to 92 percent decrease in physical and sexual dating violence. It can be used with both men or boys and females, middle and high school students. Safe Dates would fit well within a health education, family life skills or general skills curriculum. It has been shown, in studies, to be very effective through rigorous experimental design.

Why do I mention that? Because there’s a caution. We should not be using untested, non-evidence-based programs. Why? Sexual violence is a deeply rooted cultural and social problem. Programs that attempt to change people’s values often have a backlash effect, making men more likely to perpetrate. Administrations might be under pressure to just check the box and do something that is easier or costs less, and that may result in ineffective solutions.

Some of those risks for boys are that they could actually increase their likelihood of perpetration, or they could have a backlash effect, which increases the likelihood of toxic masculinity behaviours. For girls, it could restrict the quality of life without increasing their safety — restrict their willingness to socialize, make friendships and possibly business connections with men. By empowering girls without teaching them effective, proven skills, we risk making them feel even more self-blame when attacked.

Why reinvent the wheel? Ontario has a great program. It’s on line, extremely well done, and parents and students love it. Check out #savesexed. The 2015 version is completely on line, and the 2019 version will be on line in September.

There are also the bystander programs. We have a very successful one here in British Columbia called Be More Than a Bystander. It focuses on violence against women and girls with a partnership between the Ending Violence Association of B.C. and the B.C. Lions Football Club. It is crucial that key messages about the unacceptability of violence against women and girls be communicated by men to predominantly male audiences. This program has found more positive traction on the message of violence prevention than any other program to be initiated anywhere in Canada.

Better education for those who come in contact with sexual assault victims, including police, lawyers and judges, is in order. Police missteps, in fact, can actually derail sex assault cases when basic investigative steps — such as identifying and interviewing witnesses, collecting video surveillance and reviewing emails, social media and phone records — are routinely skipped. “I see it…over and over again, just incomplete and indifferent investigations that do not try to turn up the evidence that might actually be of assistance,” said Janine Benedet, a professor at the University of British Columbia.

We’re told by judges that the most difficult problems they face are these so-called he said, she said cases. Well, often it’s only her word against his word because the police have failed to collect the necessary corroborating evidence that would tip the balance in her favour. We know that Rona Ambrose, the MP, had put forward a bill, which is now stalled in the Senate, requiring judges to receive sexual assault law training. Victims are routinely re-victimized, and that’s why advocates call it the second rape.

There are other problems with regard to the implication of sexual assault, and that’s that survivors of sexual assault average more surgeries, physician visits, hospital stays and mental health care. Sexual violence also impacts a woman’s educational attainment and productivity, so there are hidden costs of sexual assault that no one is talking about — and how an unreported rape can be buried but not forgotten and rise up to affect one’s life later, perhaps because of more trauma.

I urge government to seriously consider the 16 recommendations from the Ending Violence Association of B.C.

R. Singh: I would really like to thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for bringing up this important issue.

[10:40 a.m.]

We all know that sexual violence is known to affect one-third of all women and girls at some point in life, with the largest demographic being young women between the ages of 14 and 24. Also, the research continues to show that sexual violence is usually under-reported, under-investigated and under-prosecuted.

Having worked in the field myself, I have dealt with and I have experienced and talked to the victims of sexual assault personally. It was really sad. It is such an important…. These victims sometimes are not taken seriously. I remember how in 2003 the funding was cut for so many sexual assault centres. Having worked at one of the crisis lines for sexual assault victims, I remember taking the calls and not having enough services that I could refer these people to. Those were really sad times, not just for the women who were victims but also for the service providers as well.

I really appreciate that we need to address the immediate needs generated by systemic underfunding. In 2017, the province invested $5 million to help reduce wait-lists and better meet the demands and wider services — like counselling, outreach and crisis support — with an additional $18 million over three years for continued services. These are very, very important services that these people, these victims, these survivors of sexual assault really needed. This was the much-needed funding that was provided by the province.

Also, victim services and violence-against programs through­out British Columbia shared $4 million in one-time grants to better address high demands for programs that help women and children affected by domestic abuse and sexualized violence. The province also invests more than $70 million annually in services to support victims of crime, including $16.5 million for violence-against-women programs and $32 million for transition housing services.

I really want to, here, emphasize the importance of the transition housing, because sexual violence, we all know, most often occurs in the most intimate sanctuaries, such as our homes or the homes of those we know. This means that for many survivors of sexualized violence, their homes are no longer places of safety. Survivors deserve and need a safe place where they can feel free to make their own choices about their healing journey. A sense of safety at home is absolutely integral to supporting survivors of sexual violence.

Also, as was mentioned by the member, most of the victims are young women. The demographic, we all know, is between the ages of 14 and 24. That’s why it is very important to provide funding or to make more campaigns targeted at prevention.

I’m really glad that the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training launched an information campaign to raise awareness and to help prevent sexualized violence and misconduct. The campaign coincided with the beginning of the academic year, a time when the incidences of sexual assaults on campus are highest. It has been reported that two-thirds of the campus sexual assaults occur during the first eight weeks of school. This campaign meets students where they are, by targeting social media, campus bars and spaces around campus. The message focuses on consent and respect.

We also know how much work the community groups and front-line workers do to assist the victims of sexual assault. I’m really glad that the province has provided $1.7 million in community grants to address violence against women, including domestic violence, sexual violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

In the end, I cannot just finish this without talking about the amazing work that the staffs and the teams at the sexual assault centres do to provide assistance to the victims of sexual assault. One example that we have is here in Victoria, the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre. They have been providing core services for the last 37 years. They are a one-of-a-kind clinic that provides sexual assault integrated services.

It is very important; we all know how important these services are. I really want the continued support for these services.

[10:45 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: Over the last few weeks in this House, I’ve outlined the strong evidence we have to prompt governments, both provincial and federal, to act now to educate and prevent, and treat victims of, sexual assault. We need to spend a lot more resources on evidence-based preventative strategies that clearly show both boys and girls what consent actually is and give girls the tools that they need to watch for the signs of a perpetrator — who, more often than not, is someone they know, someone they trust and who’s close to them.

These tools must be taught early on, because university is too late. Let’s get these programs into elementary schools now. We not only have to teach women their rights in relationships but also boys what is respect in a relationship.

I’ve also indicated that there are serious problems with our current police and legal systems when it comes to treating victims of sexual assault. When basic investigative steps are skipped and police are not trained on trauma-informed interviewing skills, and when lawyers and judges have no appreciation of what sexual assault actually is, then not only is the victim not served and can suffer lifelong consequences — which has a huge effect on their families, their life, their potential and also on society — but the core perpetrator is rewarded for his behaviour and now knows he can do it again with no consequences. Yes, often perpetrators do it again and again.

It is time that our educational and judicial systems put a greater emphasis on services and prevention of sexual assault. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the House — in Education, Attorney General, Solicitor General — to demand action for all victims of sexual assault. We know it’s a problem, and we know we need to get it better, particularly when these children, earlier in life, are getting perpetrated against by these people.

Thank you for your time. I’d really appreciate going further on this issue in the House on future days.

GROUND SEARCH AND RESCUE

J. Rice: There are some incredibly selfless people in this province who dedicate themselves to helping others when they need it most. These British Columbians give their time and expertise without hesitation, often on a moment’s notice, risking themselves in some of the most dangerous situations in a rugged environment, making sure that someone in trouble stays alive.

B.C.’s ground search and rescue volunteers battle the worst weather conditions and navigate the most dangerous terrain to find and rescue the lost and injured. B.C. has 80 search and rescue, or SAR, groups and approximately 2,500 volunteers. These teams take part in over 1,700 ground search and rescue missions yearly, out of the roughly 2,000 in all of Canada. That’s 85 percent of Canada’s search and rescue missions undertaken by British Columbian volunteers.

Our government, its citizens and visitors to our province owe a debt of gratitude to these remarkable people. They are vital to public safety in this province. That is why this government was pleased to announce last month an immediate funding injection of $18.6 million to GSAR. This funding will be directed towards operations, training, additional equipment and activities, and developing a sustainable long-term funding model over the next three years.

In our ongoing support, in cooperation with the B.C. Search and Rescue Association, or BCSARA, it is apparent that there are a number of functional areas that will benefit from this funding support. Examples include getting, maintaining and upgrading rescue equipment, potentially including vehicles; communications equipment upgrades; training and certification for technical specialties, such as swift water and rope rescue courses; exploring new search and rescue technologies; and providing extra supports to first responders, such as critical incident stress management.

[10:50 a.m.]

This nearly $19 million represents the single largest provincial ground search and rescue investment in B.C.’s history, a 24 percent increase from the $5 million per year an­nounced in 2016. These funds will immediately go to the B.C. Search and Rescue Association to be disbursed over the next three years to the 80 GSAR groups, as well as provincial programs such as AdventureSmart and critical incident stress management.

It fills an immediate need so that these search and rescue organizations can continue to do their essential work. Critically, this historic investment provides dedicated funding so that the province and the B.C. Search and Rescue Association can continue to work toward a sustainable and secure long-term funding model. Emergency management B.C. also has two additional staff positions to work in partnership with BCSARA to leverage all the work done so far to accomplish this goal.

I know a long-term funding model for search and rescue in this province has been a long time coming. It has taken some time, but we want to make sure we get it right. We want to build on the significant work done by BCSARA, consultants and emergency management B.C. staff to create a solid foundation for the right model.

Long-term funding was an issue when we formed government in 2017, and though we have needed some time to get up to speed so we have a clear picture of the issues and needs, this government is committed to finding a sustainable funding model that works best for everyone. This dedicated funding is clear evidence of that. We will continue to work with BCSARA to instate a sustainable funding model that allows volunteers to focus on what they were trained to do: search for and rescue people.

One of my local organizations, Prince Rupert Ground Search and Rescue, was recently on a call when the weather was, characteristically, pouring sideways rain and with gale force winds, when their central command tent gave way. These conditions are typical for the north coast, and a more fixed and robust shelter for volunteers is sincerely needed.

These dedicated volunteers are not only volunteering their time saving lives but are also out fundraising for the equipment to do their job. A tremendous amount of work has gone into organizing and carrying out a local fundraiser so people can work with the equipment they truly need.

I want to take this moment to thank B.C.’s Search and Rescue volunteers for their dedication. Sustainable funding will allow these volunteers to focus, as I said, on what they were trained to do and less on fundraising and having bake sales, etc. Search and rescue volunteers in British Columbia are amongst the best in the world, and the province is committed to supporting their invaluable work.

Irrespective of this $19 million in funding, it’s important to note that the province continues to provide search and rescue groups in B.C. with the operational supports they need to respond to emergencies. Search and rescue members are and will continue to be reimbursed for operational and out-of-pocket expenses incurred during deployment. We are continuing this valuable program, and no change is being contemplated to this support.

The province recognizes GSAR groups as a critical resource in B.C., and SAR is supported with direct operating costs. Last year government provided close to $9 million in operational funding, including $5.64 million in support of operational tasks, equipment repair or replacement, helicopter costs, mileage and meals; $2.7 million from gaming funds for equipment and training; $250,000 for GSAR training with the Justice Institute; $35,000 to support administrative functions with BCSARA; $25,000 to support travel for the annual BCSARA board meeting; and $254,000 in liability insurance for volunteer and SAR directors and officers.

EMBC supports the BCSARA position that charging for a search and rescue response could directly affect whether or not a lost or injured person will request help.

M. Morris: It was great to see the province take a second look at this issue and decide to invest in our ground search and rescue forces right across this province here. It is an invaluable service that all British Columbians benefit from at some point in time.

[10:55 a.m.]

I go back in my service as a constable in the RCMP, often­times serving in the role of search master in many searches in the remote parts of British Columbia. Particularly as a young constable, I would go out there with the academic part of performing a search, with the grid patterns and everything that I’m supposed to do, but panicking in the meantime because I was supposed to be leading this ground search for an individual or for individuals that were lost out there.

It was always heartwarming and very gratifying to see some of these seasoned veterans show up, these volunteers that we have in all our communities that partake in the ground search and rescue forces that we have here — seasoned veterans, trappers, outdoors people that have spent their entire life in that particular area and know it like the back of their hand.

As soon as those individuals would show up, the weight would be lifted off my shoulders, and we would proceed to do the search. We’d follow the grid patterns, but we would be relying on the expertise of the individuals in tracking. They can look at the ground and determine where folks have been and what may have occurred. That kind of service is replicated right across this great province — right across Canada but right across this great province of ours.

We have many volunteers. I just look at the groups that we have in my riding, in the district of Mackenzie. We’ve got a very robust search and rescue operation there. In fact, Lawrence Napier, a longtime trapper I have known for many, many years, just got his 40-year pin with Mackenzie Search and Rescue for volunteering for all of those years in trying to assist people there.

Prince George has a very robust search and rescue team as well. They’ve been out there practising — very dedicated individuals that practise their map and compass skills, swift water rescue and steep slope rescue. There are a number of things they practise on routinely as a result of the funding they get from government — again, this $18.6 million over the next three years that this government has finally committed to that program. Without that ongoing training, we would be in a serious situation, a serious deficit in some of these areas, in trying to gather those resources together.

I look at some of the files that I’ve been involved in, where we will organize a search party to go out and look for somebody that’s missing and overdue. We spend a lot of time in various weather conditions looking for those individuals. Most of them, or a lot of them, end up with happy endings. We find the individual. It’s a very euphoric kind of an experience after you spend days and days and days looking for these people in these adverse conditions and you find them in good health.

There are the other ones, too, that really weigh heavily not only on my shoulders as a police officer attending but on the shoulders of the search and rescue personnel when we find a victim who has been the subject of a carnivore attack. There have been a few of them where the grizzly bears and other animals have taken them down and consumed them. That’s often a very graphic thing for our search and rescue personnel to see and to deal with at the end of the day.

Then there’s the body recovery of individuals who have lost their lives in an avalanche or in some other tragic incident. They’ve fallen down or perhaps they’ve succumbed to other medical conditions when they’re out in the forest. These personnel are very well equipped to bring them out and to bring closure to their families so that they’re not indefinitely missing out there.

There are a lot of skills that are taken into account every day. My heart goes out to every single one of the search and rescue folks that we have right across this province that drop everything they’re doing at a moment’s notice to get out there and help — to help families, to reconcile families if somebody has been missing. Sometimes, hopefully, it’s only for a few hours, but it could be days, sometimes, before these individuals are recovered at the end of the search.

There’s a lot of time, effort and training that goes into this, a lot of equipment, updating of equipment so that they stay current and none of the equipment is deficient in any way. Again, these folks show up day in, day out, on a voluntary basis. They don’t get paid for it. They put in a lot of their own personal time in order to make sure they provide the service that British Columbians, tourists to B.C. and anybody that travels in the hinterlands of British Columbia experiences.

[11:00 a.m.]

J. Rice: B.C. is a popular destination for accessing the outdoors, getting into the back country and exploring wild places. More frequently, we hear reports of people being unprepared for the conditions. We hear about elaborate and complex search and rescues due to people overestimating their abilities and underestimating the potential risks.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I wanted to just convey that we, at emergency management B.C., support the B.C. Search and Rescue Association’s position that charging for a search and rescue response could directly affect whether or not a lost or injured person will request help, as well as the timelines of that call.

I often hear of people being very critical of people who need a rescue and talking about charging them as a solution to preventing people from making these types of choices. But again, I don’t ever want to see someone not call for help out of fear of the cost that would be incurred. Anyone who is requesting SAR support is urged to contact the authorities without delay.

As recreational activity picks up in backcountry areas, EMBC, the B.C. Search and Rescue Association and AdventureSmart issue public information about risks and the safety precautions that should be followed. We’re committed to working with BCSARA to provide sustainable and effective ground search and rescue services across the province.

BCSARA has proposed an alternate support model for ground and inland search and rescue, recommending that changes are required to sustain the current program and capacity. We’ve had a number of positive discussions with the association, and we are currently reviewing the proposal for further consideration by the provincial government. In the meantime, we have provided additional resources to support our search and rescue organization’s capacity to work together with us. We have also provided EMBC with additional funding for staff resources to assist in this important work.

We hope that the necessary work on governance and management can proceed more quickly with additional resources and that we have an acceptable and sustainable new funding model in place for the near future. The province remains committed to working collaboratively and supporting these volunteers who do this critical service.

Again, I just want to say thank you to the selfless volunteers in British Columbia that respond to 85 percent of Canada’s search and rescue calls. I think I can speak on behalf of both sides of the House when we express our gratitude and our thanks.

Hon. M. Mungall: I would ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 6, standing in the name of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 6 — CARBON TAX AND GAS PRICES

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

[Be it resolved that this House agrees that increased non revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher gasoline prices make life more expensive for British Columbians.]

I think it’s very easy to see that that statement is, in fact, accurate. It’s impossible to not see us paying the highest gas prices ever in British Columbia now and not see that it directly impacts people’s daily lives and ability to get around and conduct their daily lives, be it driving the kids around for sports and activities after school, trying to have a family holiday or trying to get to work. Not everywhere in this province has frequent and high-speed transit options. Even in areas where we do have that, we see long waits and hard access points to try to get onto transit. Transit alone is not going to solve the ability for people to get around.

When we see taxes going up, when we see that we’re paying the highest taxes on gasoline anywhere in North America, it definitely does impact people’s affordability.

Now, I know the members opposite will go on and on and on today about the $400 low-income credit that people would qualify for. I think everyone would agree that low-income families definitely need help when it comes to increased carbon taxes. But by virtue of the government acknowledging that people need that help, it would indicate that the government also acknowledges that they are making life less affordable for British Columbians.

[11:05 a.m.]

Just on that program, it makes it sound as if every family is qualifying for $400 a year. That is not actually the case. Let’s look at that really briefly. At a $30 carbon tax, it was $300 you qualified for. At $35 last year, it went up to $350. This year it goes to $400. But it’s only for people that currently qualify. It’s for those very low-income families. To see that full subsidy come through would mean that you are a family of four with a household income of $42,000 or less. It is not for the broader public. It is not for the general public at large.

Why that’s important is, again…. It’s the government recognizing that there is an added cost for people trying to just conduct their daily lives. Yet it’s trying to be marketed as if it’s not actually going to be an impact on people. The government seems to be trying to have it both ways.

Let’s contrast that to what happened when we had a $30 carbon tax and a revenue-neutral component, more importantly, to the carbon tax. In the Interior and areas outside of the 604 region, the government of the day, our government, recognized that people need to travel longer distances on average. They have less transportation options, in terms of transit, on average, so they need to drive more. They put more mileage on vehicles. We recognized that, and we figured out a way to try to pass savings on to homeowners.

We also recognized that most of the homes require some sort of gas to heat themselves in the wintertime affordably, and they would consume more to just have the audacity to try to have comfort in their home. As a result, the government started out with a $100 extra homeowner grant. It moved onto a $200 homeowner grant to people that live outside of the Lower Mainland. Now, I recognize that doesn’t cover off everyone at all, but it was a way to try to recognize and start to try to move some funds back in.

What we have seen with this government, though, with this move to a $40 carbon tax now, is that there are no more measures for the average person out there. There are certainly the low-income measures. We applaud that the low-income people will still be able to qualify for that, but it’s only for people that are currently qualifying for that GST and carbon tax refund cheque. Very few would actually qualify for the full $50 that the government is trying to tout as if it’s $400 for all.

We have to be very clear about this — that the offsets just aren’t there. In fact, what we see is that in a four-year period, the government, instead of collecting $5 billion in carbon taxation is going to collect $7.35 billion in taxation but really only spend about $900 million questionably, whether or not it’s even driving down GHG emissions with that spending.

The bottom line is this: taxes are going up. It’s getting more and more expensive for people to drive around in this province. The government is not seeming to want to take any action on that, and that’s very unfortunate. They do control carbon taxation. They do control 35 cents a litre of gasoline tax. It’s about time, I think, that everyone gets on board and realizes that there is something governments can do to try to lessen those burdens to everyday, hard-working British Columbians that are trying to get by, to make sure that they have something like a warm house for them and their kids and their spouse, and to try to make sure that they can get around town on a regular basis.

R. Leonard: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has put forward a motion which is deceptively simplistic. He appears to mistakenly mash together revenue neutrality, carbon tax and gas prices as a cause and effect for making life more expensive. There is no question that drivers today are feeling the pain at the pump, as the price of gas shot up so dramatically.

People are at the mercy of an industry that lacks transparency in its pricing. We don’t know why or when or where the prices are going to be jacked up. It’s a game of chance, trying to anticipate how to best catch the best price. But what are the real drivers for these volatile price hikes?

Our government has been clear that Canada needs more refining capacity. B.C. has two refineries that produce only 25 percent of the gas consumed here. More refining capacity would help smooth out impacts from rises in crude oil prices in the global marketplace.

There’s another area that has been pinpointed by experts in the field. Robyn Allan, from The Economist, wrote: “It’s not the cost of crude oil or supply that causes spikes. It’s abnormally high refinery and marketing margins, and we’re being taken advantage of.” Those margins are the difference between the price of crude and refined gas and between the price of refined gas and the price you and I pay at the pump — unbridled profit for profit’s sake.

[11:10 a.m.]

Navius Research identified the rising profit margins and higher fuel prices at the pump as the consequence of low competition for market share, with very few firms supplying B.C. As for other causes, according to Kenneth Medlock at the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University in Texas, it appears that singular arguments — like a pipeline not being built or the carbon tax — simply don’t hold water. That last comment is relevant to today’s motion. Today’s increase in the carbon tax translates into 1.1 cents at the pump. This one-cent tax pales in comparison to the price hikes we are experiencing.

More importantly, the carbon tax, whether at the pump or elsewhere, does not of necessity make life more expensive for British Columbians. A carbon tax is intended to drive behaviour change, to reduce the carbon footprint of people, business, government and industry. The gradual increase to a carbon tax is not only intended to change behaviours; it also provides everyone time to adjust and find ways to reduce that carbon footprint without going under. This is the formula: shrinking our carbon footprint equals reducing our carbon tax.

Can we organize our trips to be more efficient and use less gasoline? Can we find other ways to tip the balance so that we’re actually paying less? Absolutely, we can, and we must. All together, the tax and incentives to reduce our carbon footprint drive innovation so that we can be more effective in fighting the devastating and expensive impacts of climate change — the whole point of the carbon tax.

It doesn’t end there. There’s also the question of equity and fairness. A low-income person doesn’t have the same opportunities to reduce their carbon footprint. For instance, a renter in a home with poor insulation and leaking hot water is stuck paying a higher energy bill and more tax. To adjust for that, there is the climate action tax credit, which our government raised this year to up to $400 per year. We will continue to raise it each year as the tax increases. Under the old government, this credit was not raised between 2011 and 2017.

Now, about the old government’s myth that their idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax made life less expensive for people. Revenue neutrality had no meaning, because the carbon tax they collected was not driven back to taxpayers with carbon-reducing programs. How can tax credits like digital arts and film credits, though worthy of support, be defined as carbon-reducing? Targets to reduce greenhouse gases were not met. It was simply a shell game.

Our government is taking significant steps to make a difference to affect climate change across all sectors while making life more affordable for the people of B.C. It’s the cheapest way forward for everyone.

T. Redies: Well, what’s deceptively simple, using the terminology of the learned member from Comox, is that this government continues to increase carbon taxes. In fact, they will increase carbon taxes under their watch by 67 percent, and they have removed the revenue neutrality. That is very simple.

I’m pleased to rise today to speak about a topic that is important to me and important to my constituents. That is the affordability question that’s on the table. Under the watch of the NDP, we’re seeing the cost of living and working in British Columbia rise. Gas prices are skyrocketing, reaching almost 164 cents per litre in the Lower Mainland. That’s a record high, and they’re expected to keep climbing. We’ve been warned they could reach as high as $1.70 a litre.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to the members of this House that high fuel prices have far-reaching consequences for families, but they go even further, putting strain on our provincial economy. Certainly in my community, people are taking advantage of the proximity to the U.S. to fill up south of the border. Many British Columbians have determined that it’s worth their time and the gas involved to drive to the border crossing, wait in line, find the nearest gas station, fill up their tank and then repeat the same process on the way back.

[11:15 a.m.]

Rather than just stopping at the corner gas station on their way home from work, those who are still filling up on this side of the border are shopping around, trying to find even a small break in these record-high prices.

It’s a disturbing trend when British Columbians can’t afford daily necessities in their own communities. This situation isn’t unique to my constituents in South Surrey and White Rock. British Columbians all over the province travel and commute on a daily basis, whether they’re driving for school or work, whether they’re running errands for an elderly family member or taking their kids from point A to point B. I know when my kids were younger, I was constantly driving to and from schools, sports and various other extracurricular activities.

Today families are facing tough choices and wondering whether they can afford to continue giving their kids the same opportunities. The Easter weekend is coming up, and many folks will be on the road to spend quality time with family in different parts of the province. But they’re bound to get hit with a high fuel bill even after a short trip.

Summer is just around the corner, a time when British Columbians, Canadians from other provinces and international visitors alike have traditionally enjoyed our province’s spectacular beauty by taking road trips or camping or hiking. These travellers have been a significant source of revenue and driver of employment for communities all across B.C., and they’ve significantly bolstered our provincial economy. But if gas prices stay the way they are, undoubtedly, many of those visitors will either be staying home or choosing a more affordable destination.

In fact, with ICBC rates continuing to climb without end in sight, I know many British Columbians are wondering whether they will be able to afford a car at all. And British Columbians aren’t just paying more to drive their cars. Higher gas prices and a non-revenue-neutral carbon tax mean they’re also paying more to heat their homes and purchase goods like groceries that are transported by truck.

I’d like to get back to that non-revenue-neutral carbon tax. When our former government led the country in introducing carbon tax, we made it revenue neutral. That meant that British Columbians were getting money back though income tax reductions. They weren’t getting gouged like they are today.

Today the government’s latest — April 1 — carbon tax increase was just that, a straight tax increase. Under this government, carbon taxes will rise, as I said, 67 percent to $50 a tonne. We’re midway through that rise right now, and we know for sure that gas taxes are not going down under this government. They will continue to rise.

According to the government’s own budget, taxes per capita are going up $1,100 for every man, woman and child in this province. Under the B.C. NDP, British Columbians are not getting ahead. With this and the other 18 new or increased taxes this government has implemented, they aren’t even breaking even. That’s certainly not what was expected from a government that promised to make life more affordable for British Columbians.

B. D’Eith: I’m perplexed by the motion by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. The B.C. Liberals introduced the carbon tax in 2008, and it’s working.

Interjections.

B. D’Eith: Thank you for that. It was never revenue neutral. But I’ll get to that in a moment. It was never revenue neutral. In fact, in 2015, the Energy Policy journal said that greenhouse gas emissions are actually going down. So it’s working by 9 percent. Not, of course, the targets that the B.C. Liberals set and didn’t meet themselves, but at least it’s some movement in the right direction.

I really believe that the B.C. Liberals should be promoting the benefits of the carbon tax. Instead, what they’re choosing to do is mislead B.C. citizens that the carbon tax is actually having a significant impact on gas prices, even though they’re responsible for 75 percent of those carbon taxes. Again, perplexing. I mean, if you really believe this, then I would say if you live in glass houses, don’t throw stones.

This isn’t the actual case. The B.C. Liberals claim that rising gas prices are linked to carbon tax and other tax policies as well as other government positions, such as the Trans Mountain expansion. It’s just not true.

Let’s look at Ken Medlock. He’s an energy economist, senior director of the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University. “This is not a pipeline not being built. This is not the Trump administration. This is not the carbon tax. It’s not large enough to matter. It’s convenient to say a lot of that stuff, to have a single thing to point at and blame. But those arguments don’t hold water.”

Who is the real culprit for the rising fuel taxes? The main reason for this is that B.C. has significantly higher refining and marketing margins than any other region of Canada, which indicates a higher profit margin for oil companies. Price increases are common each spring as refineries shift to summer blends and summer driving seasons. Two refineries in B.C., in Prince George, provide 25 percent of the province’s gas consumption. The rest is imported from Alberta and Washington state. Of course, they go through maintenance.

[11:20 a.m.]

While we don’t control the markets, we are committed to work every day on making life more affordable. That’s why we’re increasing the climate action credits for families by $223 million over three years. This will leave families up to $400, which is all we’ve ever said. By 2021, climate action credits will be almost 70 percent higher than when we formed government.

Now, if we’re going to talk about affordability, let’s look at the real efforts this government has taken about affordability. What did the B.C. Liberals do? They doubled MSP premiums. They increased hydro rates by 70 percent, and they hiked up ICBC rates.

Well, what have we done? We’ve eliminated bridge tolls, saving people $1,500 a year. We’ve introduced a billion-dollar child care program that will save families up to $1,250 per month. We’re tackling ICBC. We’re working to get B.C. Hydro back on track. And let’s not forget the biggest tax cut in a generation for the middle class with the elimination of MSP premiums, saving families up to $1,800 a year. That’s real savings. That’s taking real steps to make life affordable. One cent per litre on gas tax is insignificant next to the huge savings to families that this government is bringing in.

What about the B.C. Liberal claim that the carbon tax was revenue neutral under their watch? Well, the tax was never revenue neutral. This is just another shell game that the former government played with the B.C. public. They claimed it was neutral by comparing it to unrelated tax credits for things like the digital arts and film tax credits. Perhaps they should have spent more time trying to meet their own climate targets and less time misleading the B.C. public about their carbon tax.

While the B.C. Liberals failed to meet their own climate targets, we’re investing billions in CleanBC and clean transit. That’s $900 million in CleanBC, $2.5 billion in public transit, $1.1 billion in making social housing more energy efficient, $90 million to help people switch to clean transportation options, $42 million for people to purchase zero-emission vehicles and on and on. This is real action to tackle climate change.

Now look, we understand that people are frustrated when gas prices fluctuate. The one-cent carbon tax increase is not the cause. It’s the gouging by oil companies. It’s constrained refining capacity that’s causing this change. And of course, the Leader of the Opposition said: “Our party is very much dedicated to the idea that you respect the marketplace when you set these prices.” The B.C. Liberals can’t really attack the real cause of the gas prices, so what do they do? They try to pin it on the tax.

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

When we were debating the budget bill, I noted how the title of Budget 2019 is “Making life better.” It reads kind of like a cruel joke when we see the 19 new tax increases and paltry projections for our resource revenue, especially how this is going to impact us in the north. It seems the NDP sense of humour, though, has moved from dark to just surreal. Maybe it’s an in-house joke, but the government has scrapped its transparency report. They can all laugh about the impacts behind closed doors while the rest of us are literally kept in the cold.

I’ll tell you what. Even though the NDP won’t tell us what the projections for their tax hike are, that isn’t stopping the people of this province from feeling the effects. Most folks in Fort St. John and in much of the north rely on natural gas, like myself, to heat their homes for seven months of our winter. When I say winter, I mean, on average, minus 30 degrees. After April 1, which just passed us, the carbon tax will now be more than the commodity price on my natural gas bill. While I’m lucky to have a stable job, the decrease in resource revenues means that there are going to be a lot of people with the same bills who aren’t near as lucky as me.

Let’s talk about jobs for a second. When you work in natural gas, forestry and a lot of other resource jobs, you’ll be out in the blistering cold for a better part of the entire day. Companies in these industries also see a significant increase in carbon tax, made now even higher by this government’s gouging. For example, if someone works outside in the resource industry, they have to keep their truck running. They have to keep their truck running so it won’t freeze up, and they have to keep their truck running so the workers can have a little break and prevent themselves from freezing to death.

[11:25 a.m.]

This increased cost, plus lower resource revenue, also means, potentially, more layoffs and more poverty in British Columbia. A lot of folks are already struggling in this province, and climate change may not be the first thing on their minds.

The B.C. Liberals’ original revenue-neutral carbon tax garnered praise as a cutting-edge approach to fighting climate change from well-respected, international publications such as The Economist and the New York Times. Why? Well, the revenue-neutral tax means that any extra money paid on emissions would be made up through an income tax cut, a low-income tax credit or reduced corporate taxes for both small and larger businesses.

We understood that with a sudden increase in their fuel cost, it was only fair that we provide some relief along with that. Surely, the government must have a very good reason why they’re going to continue to raise the carbon tax at a time when they are also saying resource revenues are going to be low. Well, not that I can see. Not that any of us are aware of.

The other side killed the transparency report, so we actually don’t even know the reason — if, in fact, there is one. We do know that 85 percent of the revenues, though, that have been collected from this increase are going into general revenues, revenues that could be used to help workers whose jobs are in jeopardy in the face of lower resource revenues. We have no indication of whether or not that is the plan, but I suspect not.

I think that British Columbians are sick and tired of the NDP’s sense of humour on this tax. They aren’t getting this cruel joke, and they aren’t getting anything from this tax increase.

R. Glumac: Many people are upset at the price of gasoline right now. Why has the price gone up so dramatically over the last few weeks? Just over a month ago, the prices of gas were under $1.30 a litre. Now the prices have gone up over 30 cents in the last month.

One of the reasons is because crude oil prices have gone up. We know the gas prices are tied to crude oil prices, but they only account for some of that gain. It isn’t the whole answer. Crude oil prices were 60 percent higher in 2014, but we’re hitting all-time highs today. We’re hitting all-time highs when we’re nowhere near the all-time highs of crude oil prices. Something is not adding up. That extra money is going somewhere.

Here’s what we do know. There was a research report in 2018 that looked into gas prices, and this is what it said: “Since 2015, gasoline and diesel prices in the Vancouver area market appear to have decoupled from supply costs, resulting in high prices that cannot be attributed to the competitive market forces or scarcity of supply.”

The prices are not set by the market anymore. The data actually show that since 2014, refinery margins, the revenue from refining, have dramatically risen in B.C. and are now nearly double the Canadian average. The revenue from refining in B.C. is nearly double the rest of Canada, and the data shows that this is not a supply issue. In fact, the Port of Vancouver has been a net exporter of gasoline and diesel.

Some people are saying: “Let’s build the Kinder Morgan pipeline. That’ll solve our problems.” Well, it’s just not true. The data in the report shows that this is not a supply problem. A pipeline is not the answer.

Some people are saying: “Lower the carbon tax; that will solve our problems.” The carbon tax went up one cent on April 1 — one cent. Eliminating the carbon tax is not the answer to reducing gas prices.

So what is the answer? Right now 80 to 90 percent of the fuel supplied to our market is supplied by four firms. There is a fundamental lack of competition. That’s what it says in the report. Adding more supply will not reduce gas prices because of this lack of competition.

[11:30 a.m.]

The only solution is to reduce demand, and we can do this. We can do this. We can reduce demand by creating a market for alternative fuels to create more competition. We can reduce demand by expanding public transit. We can reduce demand by mandating minimum sales of electric vehicles. We can reduce demand by providing credits to purchase those vehicles. These are the things our government is doing with CleanBC.

We’re investing over $900 million to address climate change and to move toward a low-carbon economy, because it’s not something we can continue to ignore. We know that Canada is warming twice as fast as the global average. Our children are facing a frightening future.

We won’t get off gasoline overnight. No one says we will. So we need to understand why these gas prices are so high here in B.C. and do what we can to reduce demand. The solutions that some people are presenting will not solve the problem when there is a lack of competition in the market. That’s simple economics — something the B.C. Liberals don’t, apparently, understand. The answer is to reduce demand. One of the ways we are doing this is by moving toward a lower-carbon economy.

J. Thornthwaite: I rise in the House today to speak to the motion brought forward by my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson: “Be it resolved that this House agrees that increased non revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher gasoline prices make life more expensive for British Columbians.”

Non-revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher gasoline prices do indeed make life more expensive for British Columbians. The non-revenue-neutral carbon tax is a pure cash grab, with no clear benefit to British Columbians.

Revenue-neutral taxation means using the money generated from increased tax dollars to reduce taxation elsewhere to actually make life more affordable. Unfortunately, the NDP are determined to continue making life more expensive and more difficult with the increase or introduction of 19 new taxes, many of which directly target residents on the North Shore. These taxes include the employer health tax, which places an unfair burden on small businesses; the school tax, which has nothing do with schools; and the so-called speculation tax, which unfairly targets British Columbians who happen to own a second home — plus, it has nothing to do with speculation.

The NDP have followed through on the B.C. Liberal plan to lower small business tax by 0.5 percent, but then they went on to place an extra burden on small businesses with the employer health tax. In 2019, this year, they’re getting double-dipped, having to pay the MSP plus the employer health tax.

British Columbians are paying more at the pump, as the cost of gas can be attributed to provincial taxation, at 35 cents a litre. Plus, with the federal tax, it’s up to 52 cents a litre.

The NDP government prides itself on being champions of green initiatives, but only 15 percent of the $6 billion the carbon tax is collecting is actually going towards the CleanBC plan. That’s just $900 million out of $6 billion. Who knows what the government is doing with the rest of the 85 percent? They won’t tell us, so we suspect it’s going into general revenue.

In fact, the 15 percent that is going into CleanBC is actually just repackaged from the former B.C. Liberal government’s plan, like an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, electrifying upstream oil and gas activities, reducing upstream methane leakage. These are just more initiatives that were adopted from the B.C. Liberals. The difference is that under the B.C. Liberal government, these initiatives were implemented when the carbon tax remained revenue neutral.

Let’s be clear. The B.C. Liberals support the carbon tax. We started it. We ran on it in 2009, and it was their side that ran against it with the so-called Axe the Tax campaign. In 2016, B.C. was recognized as an international climate leader for its revenue-neutral carbon tax, receiving the Momentum for Change Award at a low-emissions conference in Morocco.

[11:35 a.m.]

In 2017, the B.C. Liberal government included the following major tax cuts to keep life affordable, such as a cut in income tax, as well as a credit for low-income adults and children. But for businesses, the business tax cut is totally negated now with this NDP employer health tax.

The cost of fuel will only get higher as a condition of the NDP’s power-sharing agreement with the Greens. We have the highest gas prices in North America at over $1.60 a litre. The Premier mentioned a couple of weeks ago that he’d consider giving British Columbians relief at the pumps, but then, the next day, he went back on it, saying it was up to the gas companies.

We know that the province controls 35 cents a litre, so there is room for the Premier to do something, but he refuses. Plus the TransLink tax is set to go up later this year, so gas will likely go up and up and up. We once again ask the NDP to return the carbon tax to revenue neutrality and give British Columbians a break. Otherwise, it’s just a cash grab by this government, and it’s not doing anything for green initiatives.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the motion and address the issue of carbon tax and the increase in gas prices we’re seeing at the pump. I think it’s an opportunity that’s very important.

We should make the case and make it clear to British Columbians that the increasing prices at the pump are not a result of the carbon tax. We know that the increase in carbon tax as of April 1 was 1 cent a litre, so that doesn’t account for these increases that we’re seeing. I think it’s important to really push back against that and explain to British Columbians and really expose this fearmongering and how the Liberals are misleading the public on this issue. It’s an opportunity.

The issue of climate action…. There’s an urgent need for climate action, to really take steps to ensure, not only in British Columbia, but in Canada and the world, that we meet our goal to stabilize our global climate. We know the impact of that in terms of fires in British Columbia and certainly a number of issues that we’re seeing around the world. So the issue of carbon tax addresses that. It puts a price on carbon pollution, and it is shown to be effective in terms of reducing carbon pollution.

We’ve seen an increase in gas prices at the pump. Previous speakers have laid out why we’re seeing that, disproportionate to the rest of Canada. We have a lower capacity in terms of British Columbia, and lower competition. It’s gouging from the gas companies that are padding their profit margins at the expense of consumers. That is at the root cause.

When we look at, as well, in terms of here are some claims around…. Certainly it’s hitting people at the pump, and it’s an issue of affordability. But it’s really something to hear my colleagues in the Liberal Party claim that they’re now champions of affordability. We know there is an affordability crisis in our province — affordability of housing that built up over 16 years of the previous government, affordability around child care, affordability around MSP rates doubling.

Our government has made a clear commitment in a number of areas and addressed this crisis of affordability, implementing a comprehensive housing plan, bringing in child care for British Columbians, reducing interest on student loans, eliminating the MSP to ensure…. Just on that alone, the largest tax cut in British Columbia history for middle-class families — $1,800, very significant. That’s our record on affordability.

Certainly we also look at why it is that we hear from the other side that gas prices are always in the purview of the carbon tax. That’s not accurate. We heard…. I’m very pleased that the previous speaker, my colleague the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, also agrees with us — her quote that gas prices could jump another 15 cents by summer, and it’s not because of the carbon tax. I’m happy to hear that there is agreement on that side.

[11:40 a.m.]

The carbon tax introduced by the previous government to address climate pollution — certainly that’s one aspect. But our government is taking action in terms of a number of components to ensure that we reduce carbon pollution but also transition to a carbon-free economy. I’m very proud of the commitments that we’ve made and the areas that we’re moving forward on.

We are making significant investments, bringing in CleanBC, record investments in transit — billions of dollars being invested into various aspects of our economy. We know that there is over $900 million to make B.C. a leader in the country, to deal with climate action, climate pollution and to make sure our air, land and water are protected and clean. We’re investing record amounts: $2.5 billion in the Mayors plan. The previous government held a phoney referendum so that they didn’t have to invest needed money in public transportation.

Investment in social housing. This is to address energy efficiency and also help people save money on their heating bills. We are also encouraging folks to switch to cleaner transportation options and taking steps to take action on climate change.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to take my place today to speak to this motion.

Affordability is a big topic in B.C. right now. Everybody is talking about it. It’s coffee shop talk. It’s kitchen table talk. Everybody is concerned about affordability. Today this House is talking about the fact that a non-revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher gasoline prices make life more expensive, and they do. That’s just simple math.

The NDP members are spending their time today talking about all the other things they’re doing to help people with affordability. Some of those things are good things. Some of those things will affect some people’s lives. There is a small number of people that will benefit from an increase in the carbon rebate. There are some people that are benefiting from the reduction in tolls. There are some people who are seeing a decrease because of MSP.

But not every family in British Columbia is benefiting from these changes. Every family is paying an additional one cent in carbon tax on a litre of gas, and every family is paying 18 other new taxes that the government has implemented in one way or another.

The reality is that the government is now in the position that they have the ability to make changes and choices to affect affordability for British Columbians. In this case, they have chosen to add to unaffordability. They could, as they control 35 cents on a litre of gas, choose to reduce those, but they are not. Instead, they are blaming the other realities of potential price-taking on gas from the corporate sector, and saying, well, they can’t do anything about it and one cent doesn’t do anything. Well, one cent does do something. It is another increase, and it is one that is entirely in the control of the government.

Let’s talk about the other things that are going on. I reinsured my car this week. My car is a year older. Thankfully, no accidents or citations, yet I’m paying an additional $200 a year for my car insurance. I am facing all of those other 18 new taxes that the NDP has introduced.

[11:45 a.m.]

These things are not just for me. There are other British Columbians that will see these things go up. It’s making a real impact in the lives of British Columbians. The latest hit is the jump in gas prices. As I said, government can act, but they don’t want to. They say one cent doesn’t matter, but it does, unless, of course — as I quote a former member of this House, Kevin Falcon — you’re doing NDP math.

When I got home last week, I filled my tank and paid $1.629. It’s gone up again since. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise how much people want to talk about this and how angry people are about this. It’s not just a matter of saving money by finding other alternate transportation or taking transit. For some people, that isn’t a choice. It isn’t a choice for me because there isn’t any for me in the places I need to go in my workday. For many others who need to use a car for work, it is not an option.

I had some people who engaged over Twitter and other means this weekend, talking about: “Well, you should just get an electric vehicle.” Well, you know what? I would love to, and I will do that, and I’m sure others will as they are able as well. But at this moment in time, for people like me who require an accessible vehicle, that’s not an option. There are just too many reasons that affordability is going up. The government has the opportunity to act, and they’re choosing not to.

B. Ma: This is a very interesting motion being put forward by the B.C. Liberal caucus, and I think it really demonstrates very much how the members opposite are absolutely grasping desperately to try to use it to build a case against us that also doesn’t simultaneously implicate themselves.

First, they blame the gas price increases on the carbon tax increase. Well, I know that math is hard for some members opposite, but I’m pretty sure a one-cent-per-litre carbon tax increase doesn’t explain a 16-cent-per-litre jump. But then they never seem to point to the fact that 7.6 cents per litre in carbon taxes were actually put there by the B.C. Liberals before the NDP ever came into power or the fact that the federal Liberal government is one that is mandating that all provinces apply a $50-per-tonne tax by 2022 and that B.C. is simply ramping up gradually in order to meet that federal obligation.

Then when they’re called out by people who care about global climate change and the need to reduce emissions, the members opposite try to greenwash themselves by pointing out that it was the B.C. Liberals who brought in the carbon tax in the first place. But simultaneously, they never bring up that point while they’re complaining about how the carbon tax affects gas prices.

Taking action on climate change is exactly why we’re taking a portion of the carbon tax revenues and putting it towards CleanBC to fund green initiatives while maintaining the tax credits that the members opposite are so fond of and, in fact, restructuring them to provide even more help to families of lower and middle incomes.

Then the members opposite complain that the carbon tax is no longer revenue neutral because 100 percent of it is not given away in a mishmash of unrelated tax credits the way that theirs was. Well, yes, I’ve already explained that. We’ve taken a portion of the increase to put towards CleanBC. But then the B.C. Liberal members complain that the CleanBC investments only make up 15 percent of the total carbon tax revenue. Well, yes, I’ve already explained it. That’s because the rest of it is being used to maintain the tax credits that they are so fond of.

You can’t have it both ways, Members. You can’t complain that 100 percent of the revenue isn’t being put towards random tax credits because we’re spending some of it on CleanBC and then simultaneously complain that we’re not spending enough of the revenue on CleanBC.

The members opposite are trying to suck and blow at the same time on this issue. I cannot even believe my ears when I hear members opposite complaining about increases to ICBC rates that were created and caused by their government to begin with.

If I’m being honest, it does give me some amount of pleasure watching the B.C. Liberals take a break from their daily prayers to the all-knowing, all-seeing, always right, mythical free market that they believe will balance the world automatically in order to advocate that government control the market price of gasoline, which, of course, is exactly what they’re arguing for.

[11:50 a.m.]

They know that even if we took all of the taxes off of gasoline prices, there is absolutely nothing stopping oil companies from raising prices even further and pocketing the profits. So the only way we could control that was by controlling the price completely. That’s an interesting idea, actually, but one I never thought the B.C. Liberals would be pitching. I’m almost certain that if the idea came from us, they’d all be calling us a bunch of dirty communists right now.

I get that the job of an opposition is to oppose. I get that. But they’re supposed to at least oppose on behalf of the people, not themselves. Let me read a quote from the leader of the B.C. Liberals from last year: “We currently have a government where we’re in opposition, and our job is to convince the public that we should form government once again.” I find this quote completely demonstrative of the power motive that drives that party.

The role of an opposition party is to challenge government to implement the best possible policies and legislation for the public by ensuring that differing views are expressed and defended, not to plot their way back into power. This motion and the fractured narrative that they’re trying to build is just another pitiful example of how they’re more concerned about playing politics than they are of actually helping people, more concerned about confusing the public than they are in supporting them.

I don’t know, and I don’t think they know anymore, who they represent. They are flailing, because without big money in politics, without their big corporate donors telling them what to do, they’re learning the ugly truth of it all. They don’t know how to work for people.

T. Shypitka: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to my colleague from north Kamloops…. “Be it resolved that this House agrees that increased non revenue-neutral carbon tax and higher gasoline prices make life more expensive for British Columbians.” I think that’s a pretty obvious statement.

I listened to some of the members on the other side. One says it’s because we don’t have enough refineries. One says it’s not because we don’t have pipelines. I’m not sure how you get oil to refineries without pipelines. But then again another member says it’s because we want to reduce demand. Well, guess what. Mission accomplished. You’re reducing demand in the province because the underlying reason, one of the big reasons that government can address, is fiscal policy, and that’s taxation. That’s something we do have control over.

We don’t have control over refineries. I would like to see a refinery get put in British Columbia. I really would. But we don’t have that control. What we do have control over is our fiscal policy. That’s this government’s responsibility. They’re walking away from that responsibility here with this motion.

I live in the Kootenays. It’s a great area. We have lots of recreation 365 days of the year. Our outdoor living and our access to recreation is amazing. What’s amazing, actually, even more, is why more people don’t live there. One of the reasons, I think, is probably because of some of the offsets. We have remote locations. We have great distances to go to some of the amenities that a lot of people in the Lower Mainland have access to readily. Health care is one of those issues. Education. Sometimes it’s a full-day drive to get to a hospital where I live. So that affects our livability as gas prices…. I’ll get to that in a second.

Revenue neutrality is what we’re talking about here. It was essentially a new concept. It was brought in, in 2008 by the B.C. Liberal government. This was an approach to climate change, and it was celebrated as a fair and honest way to implement the strategy.

As a matter of fact, the New York Times, The Economist, the L.A. Times all gave it high praise. As a matter of fact, the United Nations, in 2016, gave it high accolades of being very cutting edge and a good way to deal with carbon tax. The former World Bank president praised this way of doing business as “one of the most powerful examples of carbon pricing.” So this was not just something the B.C. Liberals celebrated. This was something that was celebrated across the world as being very cutting edge.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Revenue neutrality, as we know, takes every dollar collected by carbon output and gives it back to every taxpayer in the province by reducing corporate and personal income tax. This affects the whole province in addressing affordability. Under this model, B.C. had the lowest personal income tax in the country for those that earned under $125,000 a year. We’re starting to see that slide now.

[11:55 a.m.]

For this self-serving reason, we’re seeing this tax now being…. Revenue neutrality is gone. We’re seeing it going into general revenue. For this self-serving reason, this tax is now not being distributed to everyone in the province. Now this tax is going to government to spend how it sees fit. If we’ve seen it once, we’ve seen it a thousand times with this government. The NDP know how to spend your cash better than you do. This is just another glaring example of that.

This tax goes into general revenue to be spent on pet projects that will give the most political gain. If it wasn’t enough that this government, with the help of the Greens, put in a tax that forced British Columbians to pay for political campaigns, now they steal a revenue-neutral tax and refocus it back into places where they can get more votes — purely sinister.

We are not talking about chump change here. This tax will bring in about $7.35 billion in the next four years. Most of this money would have been better served going to the people of B.C., rather than to line the pockets of special unions and special interest groups. Perhaps the biggest hypocrisy of them all is that only about 15 percent of this tax will be going to the CleanBC program, which has a mandate to reduce carbon emissions, which is kind of ironic because I thought that was the whole idea of the carbon tax in the first place.

Unfortunately, this meagre 15 percent going back to CleanBC to reduce carbon emissions…. We don’t know where the other 85 percent is going. Unless, of course, the NDP bring back transparency to the carbon tax, British Columbians have no reason to trust that this government is spending their money wisely. The NDP have killed the carbon tax transparency report telling us what they’re spending the carbon tax on. Isn’t this the whole idea of the carbon tax in the first place?

The next piece of all of this is: why is this tax going up in the first place? The first part is they’re taking away revenue neutrality. Now, we’re wondering why we have to go up. It’s going up another 40 tonnes here in the next couple of years.

I guess I’m running out of time here, hon. Speaker. Chevy Chase would not have been able to take his family to Walley World if this removal of revenue neutrality was in place during the vacation.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kootenay East, may I call on you to adjourn debate?

T. Shypitka moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.