logo
B.C.'s finance minister makes it up on the fly on carbon tax ... and gets it wrong

B.C.'s finance minister makes it up on the fly on carbon tax ... and gets it wrong

Yahoo01-04-2025

VICTORIA — Finance Minister Brenda Bailey was deep into debate on phasing out the carbon tax Monday night when she took a stab at rationalizing the NDP's reasons for waiting to act until the 11th hour.
'Some questions have been raised about this being a panic,' she began. 'Why on this day, March 31, are we bringing forward this bill?
'Well, the reality is the premier made a commitment that should the federal government step back on the carbon legislation, we too would follow suit.'
When Prime Minister Mark Carney signed off on the federal version of the tax on March 15, the B.C. legislature was on a two-week break.
'That's something that the legislature decides upon. It's not a government decision,' claimed Bailey. 'Our first day back is today. This is why we're bringing it forward now, to keep our commitment that as soon as we could act, we would act.'
Wrong and wrong again.
Carney signalled his intention to get rid of the carbon tax on Jan. 31. The other serious contender for the Liberal party leadership, Chrystia Freeland, was of a similar mind.
The New Democrats could have introduced legislation giving cabinet the power to repeal the B.C. counterpart of the tax when the provincial house sat on Feb. 18. There was a second opportunity with the budget and its enabling legislation on March 4.
Bailey is in her second term as an MLA, long enough to know that legislature sittings, like the legislature agenda, are entirely at the call of the government.
The New Democrats could have postponed spring break and recalled the house on March 17, allowing two weeks instead of one day to debate Bill 8, the Carbon Tax Amendment Act.
The last minute 'panic' was entirely of the NDP's own making. Bailey undermined her credibility by trying to suggest otherwise. But it set the tone for her entire defence of the legislation, evasive and grudging as it was.
In seeking authorization from the Speaker to put the bill through all three stages of debate in one day, government house leader Mike Farnworth made a pledge in return.
The government would extend the time for debate into the night of March 31, 'thereby ensuring that all members who wish to debate this bill at all stages are provided ample opportunity to do so.'
You wouldn't know it from Bailey's fielding of questions from Opposition finance critic Peter Milobar. She treated the clause-by-clause phase of debate as a nuisance and became more and more intransigent as the evening wore on.
The phaseout of the carbon tax would create a $2 billion hole on the revenue side of the provincial budget. Would that entail cuts? Other offsets? Or a boost in the deficit?
Bailey claimed not to have a clue what would happen.
'There is work underway,' she told Milobar. 'We are reviewing all programs that are linked to this.
'It's complex and important work, and it will take time, and it's going to be done carefully,' she lectured the Opposition. 'I think it's unrealistic to make a request that I have information on all of those decisions yet.
The government will report back with the details of any changes along with the next scheduled update on the budget in September. Meaning a full year after Premier David Eby first promised to phase out the carbon tax.
Talk about making it up as they go along. Listening to Bailey's non-answers you'd think that carbon tax repeal had just been sprung on the government, not something they'd promised months ago.
Milobar challenged the finance minister on the matter of urgency, citing precedents where the government had amended the carbon tax at a leisurely pace and retroactively.
Bailey tried to suggest the matter was closed by the Speaker's acceptance of the government request for expedited passage in one day.
'This question has been already decided upon by our Speaker,' she said, trying to short circuit the debate. 'That ruling stands. It has been litigated. It's accepted.'
It is hardly news that the Speaker sided with the government on a procedural matter. It would be a rare day if he'd done otherwise.
That shouldn't close off explanations about why the government rushed the bill.
As the hours passed, Bailey fell back more and more on saying the question was 'asked and answered.' Or she ignored it altogether.
She took to hectoring Milobar directly, at one point complaining 'you have asked a number of questions that I've indulged you in.' Later, she accused him of trying to trap her — 'playing a game of 'got you'' — with persistent questions about when the New Democrats actually began drafting the bill.
When the Opposition finally gave up and let the bill pass, it was 1:30 a.m. on Tuesday April 1.
Clause-by-clause debate, the most critical part of legislative scrutiny, had extended over four hours, much of it taken up with Milobar's probing and Bailey's refusal to say much of anything.
But presumably that's what the premier wanted — a finance minister who steers critical tax legislation through the house while explaining as little as possible.
vpalmer@postmedia.com
No excuse for last-minute rush to kill carbon tax in B.C.
B.C. Premier David Eby backs away from power grab, but hints at new attempt in fall

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LEDREW: Tyranny over, Liberals once again free to disagree with prime minister
LEDREW: Tyranny over, Liberals once again free to disagree with prime minister

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

LEDREW: Tyranny over, Liberals once again free to disagree with prime minister

Debate and differences of opinion are permitted once again in the Liberal Party – the children are no longer in charge. Canada is no longer run by a cockwomble. What a difference a mature prime minister makes! A prime minister who does not pick the weakest for cabinet so that his PMO will be totally in charge. A prime minister who can obviously change his mind, all the way from 'net-zero' to thinking of utilizing resources. A prime minister who will not impoverish Canadians and embarrass Canada by telling other heads of state that there is 'no business case' for exporting LNG to needy nations with lots of cash to pay us. Refreshingly, we now have a natural resources minister – Tim Hodgson – who has travelled to the once-separating Alberta to support new oil and gas infrastructure to trade in overseas markets and supply energy to Eastern Canada! How novel – jobs and riches for Canadians. LILLEY: Mark Carney offers words – Pierre Poilievre's words – but we need action GOLDSTEIN: Carney can't fix Canada's underperforming economy on his own LILLEY: Trudeau lowered bar so much, Carney gets credit for being an adult Under the regime of the last ten years, ideas that may be contrary to the dogma of the PMO could not even be broached. The late Bill Graham, an experienced and tested and worldly intellect, and former Liberal leader, was once told in no uncertain terms by some kid in the PMO that his advice on a complex issue was not necessary because 'we have this, thank you very much.' This closure of the mind was aided and abetted by appointees in the PMO who did not have the wherewithal to think through even the simplest situations. Remember the SNC-Lavalin scandal? I seriously doubt that any lawyers in the new PMO will be contacting prosecutors in any Crown office in Canada in an attempt to change a decision on criminal charges. Senior and thoughtful Liberal senators were removed from the Liberal caucus – their views not needed. Only members of parliament were allowed in caucus – people who either had their positions because of the PM or wanted a promotion that only the PM could offer, gutless supplicants who would never offer up an opinion differing from the official PMO stand. The Liberal Party itself was reduced to an insignificant triviality, its supporters cowed into silence, because if you dared offer a differing viewpoint then you were considered disloyal, and banished – or at least branded as no longer a Liberal. I had turned down government appointments, and was not seeking invitations to state dinners in Ottawa, so over the last decade I could be critical of many Trudeau positions that now, after he has been dumped, many others suddenly seem to understand were idiotic. And for that difference of opinion with the Trudeau government, lifelong friends, many of whom had partaken of my hospitality over the years, who had enjoyed the perks of power from being in favour in Ottawa (gotta love those government jets), would actually turn their heads at the sight of me – or not invite me to events that I had helped create decades ago. Several dowagers of the party tried to rip strips off me. Friends tell me that the big shots of Ottawa and Montreal hate me with a passion for daring to challenge the Trudeau government. I was 'no longer a Liberal.' The truth is that I am a Liberal – I believe in well-managed government, fiscally prudent, socially progressive, encouraging of debate, with an eye on providing the freedom and impetus to build a better Canada. I believe in the rule of law – not the fiat of unnamed, well-paid, political helpers. Much to the detriment of my finances, I have volunteered tens and tens of thousands of hours of tough slugging in the service of the Liberal Party. Now that things are returning to some degree of normalcy, I would gladly do so again, and encourage others to do so – politics is a noble calling. Canada, and the debate, needs you.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store