Last week I wrote about the very serious concerns I had with Bill 23, The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Today I spoke against the Bill at second reading. Included within the bill are three profoundly troubling sections and below I outline my objections to these in greater detail.

I begin my speech by discussing what can only be described as one of the most bizarre moments for me in the Legislature since being elected. It has to do with the government promising, in their throne speech, to create a medal that already exists.

I then move to outline a number of outrageous steps that government is taking in a desperate attempt to land a single positive LNG final investment decision. It is truly remarkable to witness how desperate government is becoming. Sadly, government’s attempt to fulfill their irresponsible election promise of wealth and prosperity for one and all from a hypothetical LNG industry is coming at the expense of future generations.

Video of Second Reading Speech

Second Reading Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you to the previous speakers for highlighting some of the issues I too would like to speak to, and against. in similar cases.

First off, I do wish to thank the Minister of Natural Gas Development for making staff available for a briefing today, which we found very helpful in explaining some of the rationale behind the royalty amendments that I will discuss later.

As was mentioned by the member from Nanaimo, this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, like previous acts, is always interesting because there’s a potpourri of topics in here, some of which some members in this House will approve. Others, some members in this House will not approve. There’s many different angles that one could take with this bill. In voting yes or no on the second reading, one has to weigh the pros and the cons. One might actually think that the ways of dealing with some of these are at the committee stage, which I certainly will explore in more detail, some of the ideas there.

There are a couple of sections that concern me quite profoundly. But I will start, and I want to preface that there is one section here that is actually good and something that I find very easy to support, and it’s an election promise that the B.C. Liberals will be able to keep. The irony here should not be lost on many people.

I’ve had the privilege of serving in this Legislature for two years. In that two years I’ve heard a lot about the 1990s. I’ve heard it referenced time and time again about what happened in the 1990s. Well, did you know that in the 1990s, the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act was brought in place?

Guess what is there in section 19 of that act. Section 19 states this: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may award the British Columbia Medal of Good Citizenship to recognize persons who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing manner for the common good without expectation of reward.”

This was one of the prime announcements in the throne speech — that government would actually bring forward a B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship that already exists. This has got to be one of the most bizarre moments for me in this Legislature, to see the hubris, the narcissism of a government that thinks that it’s okay to make a big deal about bringing in a medal that’s been on the books for almost 20 years. It’s truly, truly…. I mean, you can’t make this stuff up. It’s happening in B.C. politics here in the House

You know, what is so sad about this is that British Columbians are paying the price. British Columbians are paying the price for a government that clearly does not have an legislative agenda this session, apart from desperately trying to fulfil its election promise about LNG.

We watch one after another after another of the big players in the LNG market cite what I have been saying for two years: the growing glut of natural gas. The price is dropping. Japan is bringing on nuclear reactors again. Australia is well ahead. Companies are merging. The price of oil is dropping. And B.C., rather than recognizing that we are late players in this game, that we do not have a competitive advantage, that we will maybe one day find a use for this natural gas….

I see some small little additions here, which I call the methanol and the refining amendments, where there are some kinds of ideas that perhaps we should do something in case it doesn’t pan out, and there are other projects that we might go for. What this government is doing with amendments, two of them in this act, is continuing this generational sellout which my friend from Nanaimo–North Cowichan and I describe as a generational sellout. I cannot take credit for the term “multigenerational sellout.” That goes to the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. But it’s far beyond that.

We see this taking another step. Not only are we letting the minister enter into royalty agreements that will hamper future generations, not only government but future generations, by irresponsible promises made by a government that had no idea what it was doing during an election campaign except for offering a message of hope wrapped in hyperbole in a desperate attempt to get elected.

“Say anything. We’re not going to get elected, but let’s hope we get a few seats.” And lo and behold, we have a majority over here, a government that does not know what they’re doing on this file and that has become an embarrassment internationally on the LNG file. We’ve watched company after company after company look at us and say: “What’s going on?”

Here we now have, in this bill, the greatest, most serious insult that future generations could have, which is saying: “We are going to lock you into royalty rates with one company. We’re also going to forget municipal charter acts.” We’re going to go over that too, and we’re going to do what we can to write legislation so that this one company may — may possibly, perhaps — if things go well, make an investment decision by June of this year. And they’re the only one thinking of doing it.

The level of irresponsibility here — I cannot underestimate it. British Columbians should be walking in the streets over this legislation. I know they’re not going to pay attention to miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. Buried within that is not only an intergenerational or a multigenerational sellout, it’s a historic one. It’s a historic sellout to foreign multinationals of the rights of British Columbians and future generations to gain value from our natural resources.

It’s a very sad day in British Columbia if we were to pass the relevant sectors in here. Sadly, as this government no longer listens to constituents, to small business owners — we see it in the liquor legislations — to the opposition, to independent members, they are marching to the beat of their own drum, because they think that by being elected as a majority they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, with no accountability.

But there will be accountability when British Columbians do realize this, and we can see it happening around the province. There will be accountability in 2017 for this multigenerational, historic sellout that is continuing here in British Columbia.

Let’s move directly to section 23, the Port Edward tax agreement. Now, where is this coming from? The Port Edward tax agreement. For those riveted at home to the debates that are happening now, Port Edward is near Prince Rupert. It’s where Petronas and BG and Shell…. It’s in the area where there was going to be an LNG facility.

It’s an area where there used to be a vibrant pulp mill, but of course that shut down because we’re not nurturing our forest industry; instead, we’re natural gas. It’s LNG or nothing in B.C. right now. It’s a message that’s being sent to business in B.C. I recognize the minister is troubled by those words, but the reality is business in B.C. has heard the message: you’re either with us on LNG or we’re not interested in where you’re going.

That is the signal, because the government here is picking winners and losers in the marketplace — a so-called free enterprise government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. The winner they’ve picked is LNG. But it’s even worse than that. It’s not winners and losers; it’s winning companies and losing companies, because we see legislation at the scale of individual municipalities. We’re amending the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act to allow the district of Port Edward to enter multi-year agreements with Pacific NorthWest LNG.

What is going on here? We’re introducing law so that a municipality can forget the rest of the law that’s applied to municipalities in the province so that they can negotiate and do special deals with one company. We’re picking the winning technology and the winning sector, and we’re picking the winning company.

This is no longer a government that has any credibility as a free enterprise government. This is a government that is really a pick-a-winner-and-loser government. They’re picking losers as we go along, and it’s continuing to manifest itself with this legislation.

To be able to have this agreement last up to 25 years and establish an amount or formula to be used for the duration of that agreement for one company may give business certainty for that one company. Sure, Pacific NorthWest is going to have business certainty, and we all know business needs certainty, but this is giving an intergenerational sellout at the same time.

There’s no certainly for British Columbians here. This government was elected to represent British Columbians, not elected to represent Pacific NorthWest natural gas and Petronas and market that company to British Columbians, which is what is happening here in this legislation.

There are many other examples in this. I have another couple on this particular section.

You know, we see Port Edward being given the power to set a unique tax rate for Pacific NorthWest LNG that could be different from other class 4 properties. No, we’re picking one company over another. You want to develop this land, your class 4 property? Guess what. If you’re LNG, it’s one thing. If you’re forestry, you’re another. This is sending a message to industry that you are either…. You want to do industry in B.C.? You’re with LNG. We’ll do anything we can for you. But if you’re a struggling industry in another sector, maybe not. It’s LNG or nothing here in British Columbia.

A government that has the audacity to claim leadership on climate. The audacity for a Premier to be invited by the World Bank and to claim, in this province, that she is leading a government that has leadership on climate policy does nothing but make the government of British Columbia a laughingstock within credible people across Canada.

This government has no credibility on the issue of climate policy. It was the previous administration, under the leadership of Mr. Campbell and the leadership of Barry Penner, the Environment Minister, that built that credibility that this government has destroyed in the matter of two-and-a-half short years.

Now, I recognize the Minister of Health did his bit. He was a very fine Minister of Environment when he was there, but he’s no longer there. The Minister of Environment is doing what she can. Unfortunately, they are but a few within a caucus of many who are doing everything they can to unravel the leading climate policy that existed in this province.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The truth does hurt. When the members opposite start heckling, they recognize that the truth does hurt — the truth to try to claim leadership on greenhouse gas emissions.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Health suggests I’m losing credibility by telling the truth. I would suggest to the minister that the government has lost credibility by not telling the truth for two years.

You can check my page: andrewjweaver.ca. It’s there from December 2012. That’s on Facebook prior to the election and during the campaign. I’ve said the same thing about LNG. I haven’t changed my tune. The government has — a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion hit to GDP, “Debt-free B.C.,” no PST, thriving schools and hospitals. La, la, la. Come to B.C. We’ll tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear. Unfortunately, here we are in B.C. with yet another generational sellout happening before us.

Subsection (4)(b) exempts agreements from cabinet regulations that prescribe limits on tax rates, relationships between tax rates, formulas for calculating tax rates and so on.

Section (4)(c), another exemption for PNW properties, allows an exemption for them being prescribed as port land under the Assessment Act. That, again, means that cabinet regulations that prescribe the actual value of the port land — or they establish rates, formulas, rules or principles for determining the actual value of the port land — would not apply. Let’s just throw that out. It might not give a company certainty.

Subsection (4)(d) exempts PNW properties under an agreement from the Ports Property Tax Act. We wouldn’t want to tax LNG, which generally outlines property tax provisions for ports.

Whose needs are actually being served here? Is it British Columbia’s needs? Is it this government that is voted and tasked to represent British Columbians and provide the oversight that British Columbians want? Or is it the winner that they chose in the winning sector, in an economy, in a market that’s falling? When other jurisdictions are diversifying their economy, we are not.

The Community Charter was written to provide fairness and a level playing field for businesses. This act seems to empower Port Edward to create an unfair playing field.

It gets worse, with the royalty agreement section in sections 44 to 56. Sections 44 through 66 have received a lot of focus already, as they appear to be particularly troubling. They appear to allow the minister to enter into royalty agreements with natural gas producers. The minister can enter into an agreement without approval from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council if the agreement is “in respect of a prescribed class of agreements” — whatever that means.

There are several concerning points here. The entire purpose of this section appears to allow this government — a government that’s lost credibility on the LNG file, if it ever had any in the first place — to lock future governments into royalty agreements without offering as much as any way of oversight or checks and balances to protect British Columbians from, frankly, irresponsible decision-making that is ongoing in British Columbia today on this file.

We already have a royalty regime in place. The problem, of course, is that as far as the government is concerned and, perhaps, the industry is concerned, this royalty regime may not be certain in future governments. Perhaps the government is worried. Perhaps the government is worried that in 2017 the B.C. Green Party will be sitting over there, and they’ll be sitting over here. There’ll be a lot of my friends to the right over there and a few of you over here.

Perhaps they’re worried about that, and they want to give Petronas, or PNW, some certainty by locking in 25-year royalty rates at some rate that is to be prescribed at some point by a minister, if he or she wants, with some consultation — maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Because we’re not going to be actually bringing this forward in a very public fashion.

You know, the powers that have been given to the minister in this amendment act with respect to royalty creation in the natural gas sector are enormous. Not only are they enormous, they’re enormous powers to one minister — not the minister in the next government or the government after that but the minister in this government, a minister who’s part of the government that is so desperate to fulfil their irresponsible election promises.

The media are not going to…. They’re going to start probing. They may have given the government a few years of grace on this, but mark my word, when people start looking into this, it’s going to come a cropper if it’s not already starting to. This is egregious — what’s going on in this particular amendment.

Under the changes, the minister also has to disclose information that would be required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. However, the section in here does not clarify who determines if the information needs to be disclosed or not. Is it an independent body that’s at arm’s length from the ministry? Or could the minister theoretically decide what should be or should not be disclosed? It’s not clear.

There are other aspects of this act that I’ll just very briefly speak to, that I’d be interested in exploring further at committee stage. That’s with respect to the oil and gas activities changes, section 48, where we have (e.1) and (e.2) to include two types of oil and gas activities, and these are “the construction or operation of a manufacturing plant designed to convert natural gas into other organic compounds” and “the construction or operation of a petroleum refinery.”

Again, it’s seeming to me, in light of the fact that I know of one proposal that’s been brought to government on (e.1) and one proposal that has been brought to government on (e.2), the government again is going forward and trying to pick winners and losers in a marketplace before actually letting the market decide who those winners and losers should be. I’m curious about what the government is intending here, and I will, indeed, speak to it at committee stage.

With that, I do thank you for the time. I look forward to further discussions in committee stage. At this point, I’m still in a quandary, with respect to the vote at second reading, not because I support everything in it, but I’m not sure at this point and I still need time to reflect on whether or not the merits of supporting it at second reading or not supporting it at second reading are more on the positive or negative.

Clearly, the egregious royalty and Port Edward changes that are the government desperately trying to pick winners and losers in the marketplace to fulfil election promises are unsupportable.

Obviously, I support the B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship — again. It’s already been on the books for nearly 20 years, and the irony of this…. Again, it’s one of these priceless moments that you get in this place, in the Legislature, after listening as an independent here for two years to “in the 1990s this” and “in the 1990s that.”

Well, one of the things that happened in the 1990s is that this B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship was brought into place. Obviously, I support that. Obviously, there are other aspects in this updating of various acts that I support. But these two changes are very, very troubling.

With that, I’ll pass and look forward to hear the continuing debates.

On Wednesday, April 22 (Earth Day) I rose to speak to Bill 22: Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act. This Bill provides government with the legislative power to create an auction for wine licenses in support of a wine-on-shelves in grocery store model. In my opinion, this bill creates a multi-tiered system that preferentially favours large grocery chains over small business. It is following a similar pattern to what we are seeing emerging with government legislation. It’s a pattern that is putting more and more power in the hands of the minister to do whatever he or she wants to do, with little legislative accountability. The only reason this legislation is being brought forward at all is because the auction “bids” that government receives are ultimately defined as a “tax” whose collection requires consent of the legislature.

To give a specific example of how this bill might hurt small business, we have to look no further than the locally-owned Peppers Food Store in Cadboro Bay Village.

In 1962 John Pepper opened a Shop Easy grocery store at the location. In the early 80’s  John Davits and his partner bought the store after working in the meat department for Mr. Pepper. Once they took ownership, the community voted on a new name and it was renamed Pepper’s Food Store. John then became sole owner in 1990, although he has been either employed there or owner for over 35 years. Currently, he is in the process of turning over the day to day operations to his son, Cory, who has worked at the store in many capacities for over 25 years. Peppers is a grocery story with an area of 7,500 square feet. It does not qualify as a “grocery store” under the government’s definition that a “grocery store” referred to in the act has an area of at least 10,000 square feet. Peppers Foods owner John Davits publicly expressed concern over the fairness of this Bill. I concur.

Of course Pepper’s isn’t the only grocery store in Oak Bay-Gordon Head that doesn’t qualify. For example, the local grocery store that my family and I get most of our groceries from is Mount Doug Market owned by Carol and Cori Lau (it’s walking distance from our house). They too have an area less than 10,000 square feet yet they too only sell groceries to local residents.

This legislation grants government regulatory power to prescribe “…the number of special wine store licenses in respect of which bids may be accepted under this Act.” In essence, claims made in the media that there will be no new licenses are certainly not evident from this act. The legislation exempts “grocery stores” that win an auction license from the “one-kilometre rule” (prohibiting “store within store” grocery store liquor outlets being established within one kilonmetre of an existing distributer).

Here I worry about the Tuscany Village Metro Liquor store that has developed an excellent reputation for it’s special focus on wine, especially BC VQA wines. There are three larger grocery stores very close by that could undercut their market significantly, especially in light of the special pricing specialty wine store license auction holders are entitled to. Locally-owned small businesses are being unfairly treated. This is not right and I am absolutely bewildered why government wouldn’t ensure that small business in our community is protected. Small business in the engine of our economy.

Finally, the fact that these specialty wine store licenses restrict grocery stores to carry BC wine, cider or sake on their shelves may not be allowable under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). If we look specifically at Annex 312 of NAFTA it seems pretty clear to me that this act is simply not going to stand up to a NAFTA challenge. I wll be raising this at committee stage when we continue debate on the bill next week.

I was not alone in opposing the Bill as is evident in the second reading vote below.

The Vote

Media Statement: April 23, 2015
Andrew Weaver Welcoming Appointment of Sherri Bell as Camosun College President
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green party welcomes the appointment of Ms. Sherri Bell as the new President of Camosun College. Ms. Bell has served as the Superintendent of School District 61 since March of 2014 following the retirement of John Gaiptman, She brings a wealth of experience to her new position from both the K-12 and post-secondary levels including time as principal in Lake Cowichan and James Bay Community School in Victoria, and as an instructor and practicum supervisor at the University of Victoria. Since 2001 she has worked in administration in the Greater Victoria district.

“This is tremendous news for Camosun College and the Greater Victoria community” said Andrew Weaver. “Sherri Bell is an outstanding and inspirational educator and administrator. Her professional achievements and experience will be a fabulous asset supporting the extraordinary work of the students, staff and faculty at Camosun and I congratulate Sherri on what really is a distinguished appointment”

Sherri Bell will be taking over from interim President Peter Lockie.

-30-

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca
Cell: 1 250 216 3382

Summary of the Bill

Yesterday, Bill 21,  2015: Fish and Seafood Act passed third reading and now awaits Royal Assent. All members in the Legislature supported it. The Fish and Seafood Act replaces and updates the Fish Inspection Act and the Fisheries Act, last updated in the 1960s, with a modern framework that builds on British Columbia’s local and international reputation as a source of sustainable and trusted seafood products. It further improves operating conditions for British Columbia’s seafood sector.

The new legislation will update the licensing and regulation of the buying, selling, handling, storing and processing of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants. The legislation will also include the following to support sustainability and consumer confidence in the safety of B.C. seafood:

• Enabling the creation of a seafood traceability system to ensure seafood processed in British Columbia is both safe and legally caught, cultured, bought and sold. The system will ensure British Columbia seafood products are responsibly produced and harvested, and can be traced from the processor to the consumer.
• Prohibiting the possession of illegally caught, cultured, harvested or processed seafood products, and the unlicensed sale of fish, ensuring only sustainably harvested and safely handled seafood products enter the food chain.

The new act also increases inspection and enforcement.

Banning the Sale, Trade and Distribution of Shark Fins

On November 19, 2014 I was visited by a remarkable group of students from Glenlyon Norfolk School who, together with their teacher, had been working tirelessly to do what they can to make people aware of the plight of the world’s shark population. Following my meeting with the students I asked the Minister of Agriculture two questions during Question Period:

1) Will the government introduce legislation to ban the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia?

2) Will the government commit to working with me and other MLAs to develop a strategy that would eventually lead to banning the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia?

In response, the Minister subsequently committed to meet with me to discuss the issue. We met and at the meeting I promised to put together a package of information that he committed to pass along to Ministry staff for a thorough review.

Shortly after the meeting, I presented the Minister with a binder containing detailed and comprehensive information outlining the rationale for implementing shark fin legislation. The response to my information package that I received from the Minister in February was disappointing. The Minister did not respond to my specific question as to whether the government would consider introducing legislation to ban the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia.

The good news and new reality is that the government has since introduced Bill 21: Fish and Seafood Act. This Bill opens the door for moving forward on a ban on the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia. The key and relevant aspects of this bill are contained in section 6:

Possession or distribution of restricted fish or aquatic plants

6  (1) In this section, “restricted fish or aquatic plants” means prescribed fish or aquatic plants that

(a) are subject to prohibitions or restrictions on harvesting under an enactment of Canada or an international agreement to which Canada is a party, or

(b) may be subject to harvesting practices that are inhumane or unsustainable.

   (2) A person must not possess or distribute for human consumption restricted fish or aquatic plants except as authorized under

(a) a licence, permit or other authorization issued under an enactment of Canada, or

(b) a permit issued by a licensing officer.

Yesterday at committee stage for the Bill I probed the minister on the implications of section 6 with respect to the sale, trade and distribution of shark fin products in British Columbia. I pick up the questioning immediately after Gary Holman, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands asked the Minister if the list of restricted species would be published in the regulations attached to Bill 21.

Please note that this was the first time that I stood to speak on Monday. I had surgery on my nose last Friday and showed up in the legislature wearing a nose splint. The beginning of our conversation involves some back and forth banter about the dangers of texting while you walk.

Bill 21 Committee Stage Questions/Answers

G. Holman: There’s this reference to “restricted fish or aquatic plants,” and there are references to prohibitions or restricted “under an enactment of Canada or international agreement.” Will this list of restricted species be published in the regulations?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes.

A. Weaver: Could the minister please expand on what basis this list will be determined?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to — I believe — the member opposite for the question. I’m not too sure. We’re going to have to get an explanation of that in a minute, I’m sure.

The restricted fish and aquatic plants are those that are under two categories: (a) are subject to national or international prohibitions or restrictions on harvesting, and (b) may be subject to harvesting practices that are inhumane or unsustainable.

A. Weaver: That was an opening for me. I recognize it’s very hard to take me seriously when I look like Beak Man here. There’s always a teachable moment in everything that we do in our lives, and the teachable moment that I have here is that one should not text and walk. We hear a lot about texting and driving and the dangers of texting and driving, but let me tell you, hon. Chair, also texting and walking can be very dangerous, particularly if you’re jogging downstairs quickly while texting and not looking where you’re going.

With that, if I could continue on this. Does this mean that if an organization called the United Nations International Union for the Conservation of Nature, through their red list, were to deem a particular species to be protected and subject to international restrictions, this law would then apply in the province of British Columbia to those on the IUCN red list?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thanks to the member opposite for the question and the teachable moment. I’ve always thought — because I am one of those who is guilty of texting and reading messages while I’m walking — that someone should create an app so that while you are doing your thing, you can actually have a proximity indicator. So if you are about to bump into something, it would flash at you to look up. Or if not, at least maybe a little part of the screen with the camera in the front so that you can see before you bump into that pane of glass, or whatever else it is that caused that unfortunate accident on your face.  I wish you the speediest of recoveries, hon. member. I honestly do. That must have hurt.

Back to the question. The answer is if the prohibition is part of an international agreement which Canada is a party of, then the answer is, yes, it could be.

The Chair: Member, perhaps we should keep the discussion and discourse to Bill 21. It would probably be in the best interest of all members.

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, I will do that, but let me please point out that in British Columbia we have an incredible health care system too. I had a very luxurious time in the Royal Jubilee Hospital here on Friday last week, and I do compliment the staff there. On that note…

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I had a nurse-to-patient ratio of four nurses to one patient, too, and that was pretty impressive.

Anyway, back to the question. That is actually quite exciting. What’s interesting there is that…. You will recall that during the session last time, I raised a number of questions with respect to banning the sale, trade and distribution of a variety of shark fin products. In fact, there are a number of sharks that are actually protected on the red list of the IUCN to which Canada is a party.

So my question then, following this up, would be: to what extent will these laws be enforced, and what penalties will be put in place and how is the province going to enforce this legislation?

For example, if some people were to go in and purchase a product and have it genetically analyzed and that product was then determined to contain hammerhead sharks, for example, which we know are on the IUCN red list, would the province then step in ban the sale, trade and distribution of this? How would this be enforced?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, including his support for our health care system.

First of all, as I said before, this would be subject to Canada and the other parties being part of an international agreement. So that’s one. Then we could have this provision take effect. There would have to be genetic testing to make sure that the species is on the list. That would usually happen, I’m informed, at the point of purchase. It could be restaurants or a fish store or something like that. So the Ministry of Health would be involved.

If there’s an issue, an offence, then the maximum penalties are dealt with in section 57 of the act. We’ll canvas that, I’m sure, in a few minutes. Specific penalties, subordinate to the maximum penalties, will be described in regulations.

A. Weaver: My final question on this section is with respect to 6(1)(b) where it talks about harvesting practices that are “inhumane.”

My question on that is: inhumane is a value judgment. Who is making the value judgment as to what is or is not defined as inhumane?

Hon. N. Letnick: It would be defined in regulation. It’s not defined in the definitions of the act. And, of course, it would be applied by our inspectors, who would use their judgment in making that call.

In January of this year I wrote about the importance of transforming our regressive approach to funding health care via flat-rate MSP premiums to a more progressive approach like that in place in Ontario. A month later I tabled a petition in the legislature of 6,662 British Columbians who agreed and then, during question period, I asked the Minister of Finance if the government would empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative, progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged in British Columbia. In his response, the Minister noted that he believed that the mandate of the committee was sufficiently broad for “members of the committee, and those that they might invite in, to have the kind of conversation that the member is alluding to”. He further offered “and it will be interesting to see what results from that conversation.”

On April 13^th I followed up by formally writing to the Chair of the Select Standing Committee and asking two specific questions regarding the possibility of initiating a conversation with respect to the funding of MSP in British Columbia. Below is the text of my letter. I await a response.

Letter to the Select Standing Committee on Health

April 13^th, 2015

Mrs. Linda Larson, MLA and Chair
Select Standing Committee on Health
Room 224, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, British Columbia
V8V 1X4

Dear Mrs. Larson,

I am writing to you with respect to the question that I raised during question period earlier this session concerning Medical Services Plan (MSP) premiums. Minister de Jong’s response suggested that this Select Standing Committee on Health’s mandate could include a discussion regarding how MSP Premiums are collected.

Every month single British Columbians earning over $30,000 pay $72 in MSP premiums. This health insurance plan plays an important role, providing funding for medically required services, however in the last fifteen years fees have doubled. Furthermore the cost remains the same whether someone makes $30,000 or $300,000 a year. British Columbia’s regressive approach to collecting MSP Premiums unfairly burdens those least able to bear it and increases pressure on small business owners.

I believe that it’s time for B.C. to replace MSP premiums with a more progressive and equitable approach to funding our health care system. Overhauling our current, regressive approach would be a positive step in addressing poverty and income inequality, and ensuring a sustainable health care system for now, and future generations.

With this in mind I stood in the house and asked the Finance Minister to expand the Select Standing Committee on Health’s terms of reference to allow for the committee to examine more progressive and more innovative ways of charging MSP Premiums. He responded,

“I think the power exists now. I think the committee, charged as it is to ‘examine the projected impact on the provincial health care system of demographic trends to the year 2036 on a sustainable health care system for British Columbians’ […] I think that’s probably sufficiently broad for members of the committee, and those that they might invite in, to have the kind of conversation that the member is alluding to, and it will be interesting to see what results from that conversation.”

He pointed to two specific sections of the terms of reference. The committee has been empowered to:

Outline potential alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of the significant cost drivers identified in the Report on the sustainability and improvement of the provincial health care system;

                  Consider health capital funding options.

I recognize that the committee has already begun reviewing submissions regarding rural health, addiction recovery, integrated teams and end of life care. I also recognize that the committee has decided to first look at the submissions it has received, in fairness to those who have given them. Going forward I have the following questions for the committee:

1. The Select Standing Committee on Health has been given the task of examining the projected impact on the provincial health care system of demographic trends on a sustainable health care system for British Columbians. Their terms of reference came from the Finance Minister who has stated that, in his opinion, they are sufficiently broad for members of the discuss MSP Premiums. This regressive tax generates 2.3 billion dollars in government revenue, comparable to corporate income taxes. This tax can be charged in a more equitable fashion. I believe this is a conversation that British Columbians deserve and that this committee is an appropriate venue. Will the Select Standing Committee on Health agree to include MSP Premiums as part of their next discussion and call for submissions?
2. When first given this new mandate the committee was given the option to consider both the original and the new mandates, concurrently. This option is still available. The committee can begin discussing their new terms of reference without taking away from the submissions review. This would allow for more clarity and could allow the committee to begin a new call for submissions while still reviewing those they have already received. I recognize that proper deliberation requires time and should not be rushed. With this in mind would the committee be open to discussing their expanded terms of reference at the same time as they review their current submissions?

I look forward to the committee’s response and thank the members for their time.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weaver
MLA Oak Bay-Gordon Head

Cc: Judy Darcy, Deputy Chair