After Question Period yesterday the premier participated in a media scrum. There she announced that the government made “a principled policy decision” regarding the direction that First Nations treaty negotiations would take. Today I rose in Question Period to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation about building trust and respect within the Treaty process. I noted that this wasn’t consistent, in my view, with an apparent “principled policy decision” being announced in a media scrum after question period much to the surprise of key stakeholders.

As you will see from the exchange, I simply cannot fathom how Minister Rustad, a man known for his integrity, can continue to head up his portfolio when his ability to build trust and respect with First Nations has been undermined.

Most regrettably, the key message that this whole fiasco has sent to First Nations is that you cannot trust the word of the government. Sadly, this is a message that they have heard loud and clear for far too many decades. And here I thought that we were taking serious steps toward reconciliation.

Question

A. Weaver: Yesterday the Premier claimed that the government made “a principled policy decision” regarding the direction that First Nations treaty negotiations will take. I must admit that this is the first time I’ve heard of a principled policy decision being announced in a media scrum after question period.

Last month cabinet appointed Tom Happynook, the highly respected hereditary whaling chief of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, to the Treaty Commission. As the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation will know, trust and respect are two essential characteristics of relationship-building.

My question is this. Did the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation inform Mr. Happynook, prior to his appointment, that the government’s new direction would include no longer appointing George Abbott or anyone else as chief commissioner and potentially dismantling the entire Treaty Commission?

Answer

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, although I really appreciate the note that you sent me. You’ve broken from your tradition of sending written questions to us. But that’s fine. I get how that can go.

I do want to thank the member, because Tom Happynook is an excellent individual, and we’re very honoured that he has accepted the appointment to the B.C. Treaty Commission office.

The B.C. Treaty Commission office is structured in that there needs to be four commissioners — two appointed by the summit, one by the federal government and one by the government of British Columbia — in order to be able to function.

Without those four people being in place, the Treaty Commission office cannot continue forward with the work. So I had discussions with Mr. Happynook about the appointment. I talked about the fact that we are thinking about the treaty process, and we’re excited about being able to work with nations and being able to find ways to be able to do things better. Mr. Happynook said that he would be excited to be part of the B.C. Treaty Commission process and the work that they will be undertaking.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I would suggest that the minister call up Mr. Happynook, as I did yesterday, and ask the same question of him.

I’ve heard that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is a man of integrity. I’ve heard this not only from his constituents but also from First Nations. However, in order for a minister to be able to do his job, he must have the trust of the cabinet and the Premier. This is especially true for the portfolio of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, which comes with the added burden of historical B.C. governments dealing in bad faith with First Nations and with the complexity of navigating an intricate treaty process.

The events of the past few weeks have thrown into doubt whether this minister can speak with authority to First Nations, given the fact that the Premier is making major decisions that affect the foundation of his work, apparently without his knowledge.

To the minister: an honourable man of integrity as he is, how can he continue to head up this portfolio when his ability to build trust and respect with First Nations is being undermined by the Premier?

Answer

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I have spent the last two years travelling around the province building relations with First Nations, nations that are in the treaty process, nations that are outside of the treaty process, nations that we already have treaties with. We continue to find ways to work with all nations on progressing with our relationship with First Nations.

I find it interesting that both nations that are in treaty and not in treaty have all said the same, similar things to me: “The process needs to be reviewed. We need to find ways to be able to improve things.” So I’ve been working very closely with all nations. We’ve been listening to them. We’ve had the All Chiefs meeting. We heard this message come forward.

Even with the wide range of groups that we have, there is one thing that is consistent. That is that First Nations want to see good things for their people. They want to see healthy and wealthy communities. They want to work with the province and the federal government on the relationships, and they want to be able to build a prosperous future. We plan to work with them as partners in doing that.

On Tuesday, March 24, I rose to speak to Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2015. The purpose of this bill is to implement the budget described in the government’s Budget Speech. Bill 10 contained amendments to the Carbon Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Provincial Sales Tax Act, Small Business Venture Capital Act, and Tobacco Tax Act, together with a number of other general and consequential amendments. As noted in my speech at second reading (reproduced below), no one will agree with everything in the Bill and no one will disagree with everything in the Bill.

To give some context to my opening remarks, please note that George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, spoke immediately before me and ended with this statement:

Middle-class families, children and youth who are looking to their future, who are looking to jobs in a diverse, modern, growing B.C. economy — whether it’s in the tech sector, the creative sector or a cleaned-up resource sector — wait and continue to wait.

Apparently, it looks like they will have to wait a very, very long time, until at least 2017, before they see a government plan that builds an economy for the future.

A. Weaver: I do agree with the member, and I look forward, as either leader or someone in the Green Party forming that government, to offer British Columbians that vision that the member so eloquently put forward.

This Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, really contains no surprises. It outlines what the government has mentioned it would do as part of its budget speech. There’s some good and some bad, as there always is in all budget speeches. Of course, nobody in this House will agree with everything in here; no one in this House will disagree with everything in here.

Let me outline a few of the things that I think are worthy of highlighting, as I do believe they are important steps. For example, discharging liabilities from retroactive changes, in sections 1 and 2. Amending, through streamlining, the Carbon Tax Act. Coming over again to look at the B.C. mining flow-through expenditure, the flow-through of mining tax credits.

Now, on this particular case I would like to see some evidence that this actually is benefiting industry in British Columbia and not at the expense of small household investors. Without constraints added to the flow-through tax credit, there’s a danger that the capital can come in and that shares can be dumped on the market. Unsuspecting private investors buy up these shares at an above-market value and simply cannot sell them. So there is some concern about the flow-through mining tax credit, but overall, I think it does incentivize mining investment in British Columbia.

As the previous member pointed out, the digital post-production tax credit…. A very fine piece of legislation, I think, here as well as extending the training tax credits and changes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act.

This bill is…. It’s not so much troubling about what’s in it; it’s about what’s not in it. What we have in British Columbia is the second-highest income inequality in the country and the highest wealth inequality in the country. We’re the only province without a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. We have 500,000 people living in poverty, 160,000 of those being children.

This is a problem. As soon as you see a disparity between the wealthy and the poor growing with time and a decreasing middle class, you start to see the emergence of unstable societies. Human history is full of examples of where such unstable societies end up.

We look at some of the tax credits that are added in here, which make good headlines but, frankly, are boutique tax credits that are similar to what we’re seeing out of the federal Tories and that benefit very few. It benefits those who don’t need them.

A $12.65 per child for fitness equipment…. Now, the people who could benefit from $12.65 aren’t buying fitness equipment. They’re trying to put food on the table. And $12.65 in fitness equipment really is not doing much for anybody. It’s rewarding those who would actually be buying it anyway. By buying it anyway, they can afford to buy it anyway.

Coming to the B.C. education coaching tax credit. This is so egregious I don’t know where to start — $25.30. Picking on teachers who happen to volunteer to do some coaching or they’re an “eligible coach.”

What about all those teachers who buy art supplies out of their own pocket? What about all those teachers who buy school supplies out of their own pocket? These are not eligible deductions because they’re employees of the school board, yet they spend their own money on it. What about all those teachers who are volunteering and taking kids on field trips? What about all those other teachers who are struggling with class sizes and compositions that are so unbearable that the burnout rate is incredibly high?

Here we give $25.30 — that’s a case of beer after a soccer game — as a tax credit to coaches. To be honest, it’s insulting. It makes a good headline, “B.C. Government Rewarding Coaches,” and the subtext is: “by giving them $25.30 if they dedicate hundreds of hours to after-school coaching.” Hon. Speaker, $25.30 to somebody struggling to make ends meet is a big deal; $25.30 to a coach may buy that case of beer when they watch Sunday afternoon football.

There are other aspects in here that are troubling. As I outlined earlier, we have the highest wealth inequality in the country and the second-highest income inequality in the country. This does not bode well for a future society, one where the discrepancy between rich and poor grows.

There are real challenges for the middle class in British Columbia that we do not see in a budget measures act. These challenges are for small business owners struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay bills, struggling to meet payroll, struggling to pay MSP for their families. There are those who are living and trying to afford a place to live in Vancouver or Victoria, where the rents are substantially higher than any income assistance they might get.

There are those who can afford to pay more in our society. Those in our society who can afford to pay more, when you talk to them, are willing to pay more, provided that they know where that money is being spent. This is a problem with this bill here. The government is actually finding little boutique credits to give away, but it does not outline a vision as to where it could actually better our society through the injection of funds that we so desperately need in issues like education, social services and others.

We have a very fine debt-to-GDP ratio. I will give the government that. But what we also have is a dramatically declining ratio of percentage of revenue to the government as a percentage of overall GDP. This government has made choices such that health care funding as a percentage of GDP has remained fixed, but education funding and social service funding as a percentage of GDP have dropped dramatically since this government came to power. Why is that the case? It’s because revenue has not kept pace.

Now we hear the mantra — you would expect to see this here — “We will help the middle class when B.C. is wealthy and prosperous” from hypothetical LNG that, as you know, will never materialize. But when it does, we will all be wealthy and prosperous. “We’ll wait until then.” Well, these people can’t wait until then. These people who are so desperately trying to make ends meet don’t find any tax break in here.

Well, I guess they have the increase, the $18,327 to $19,000, before anyone pays any provincial income tax. In fact, that’s a good thing, but one questions as to where this number comes from and what studies were actually done to determine that the 19 with three zeros after it was the appropriate number that should have been done.

With that said, I look forward to exploring the details of this further in committee stage. As I reiterate, in my view, the problem with this budget implementation act is not so much what’s in it, but what’s not in it. With that, I’ll sit, as I see the member for Surrey-Whalley has just arrived.

Seemingly out of nowhere, George Abbott, the highly respected former Liberal Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, was abruptly dumped last week from becoming chief commissioner of the BC Treaty Commission. In October, just six months earlier Abbott had accepted an invitation of Minister John Rustad to head up British Columbia’s Treaty negotiation process. He was supposed to begin next Wednesday when Sophie Pierre’s term expired on April 1st.

What is so bizarre about this recent turn of events is that both the federal government and the First Nation Summit had already approved Abbott’s appointment. In a strongly worded press release, the First Nations Summit blasted the government for their decision just days before the new commissioner was to start working:

Obviously it came as a shock to some of the Premier’s own cabinet ministers too. On March 20, Health Minister Terry Lake  was quoted in Kamloops This Week as stating he was surprised by the decision to dump Abbott. He was further quoted as saying “I understand he was being considered,”and “I haven’t been an intimate part of those discussions.”

What’s even more more unusual is that Minister Lake is also a member of the cabinet’s Priorities and Planning Committee, commonly referred to as the inner cabinet. This committee, chaired by the Premier, identifies the broad direction of government, including its priority policies and programs. If anyone in cabinet should know what is going on, it should be Minister Lake.

In a statement issued by government, John Rustad, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, commented on the rationale for suddenly no longer supporting Abbott.  “I have also heard from many First Nations that the treaty process, mandates and negotiations take far too long and they are looking for a better way.”

An obvious question is which First Nations is the Minister referring to. And when did Minister Rustad start hearing from them?

But it doesn’t end there. In response to questions in the legislature on Monday, Minister Rustad stated:

“We said last September in the all chiefs meeting that we wanted to find a new path. We wanted to look at new ways to work with First Nations. We were at a signpost in the road, and we had a choice as to the path that we could take. Over the last number of months we’ve been thinking about our relationships with Nations, how we can work with First Nations differently. We’ve come to the realization that the B.C. treaty process has been very successful for the Nations that have made it through, but we need to be thinking about how we can revitalize it, how we can move forward.”

So if in fact the Minister was already thinking of a new path in September, why did he nominate Abbott to be the commissioner in October? The logic is perplexing.

It might be argued that in light of the landmark Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court of Canada decision, the first to grant aboriginal title , the government decided to focus more on economic partnerships rather than the treaty process itself. In fact, Rustad alludes to this in a response during question period on Monday where he states:

“The Tsilhqot’in decision has set the stage for thinking about how we can do things different in the province of British Columbia and how we need to shape relationships.

But we have, over the last two years, signed close to 150 new agreements. We’re now up to 300 agreements between First Nations and the province of British Columbia, furthering that reconciliation — many of those new agreements just in the last year alone.”

But here again, why would Rustad approach George Abbott in October, more than three months after the June 26, 2014 Supreme Court decision?

Perhaps we should be looking to the real power brokers in the BC government — those working on the LNG file. These are the members of the Cabinet Working Group on Liquified Natural Gas. This committee is chaired by Premier Clark with Minister Coleman serving as Vice Chair. Ministers Bennett, de Jong and Polak also serve on the committee.

We know that this government is  desperate to fulfill its irresponsible, and unfounded election promise of hope, wrapped in hyperbole, for wealth and prosperity for all British Columbians from a hypothetical LNG industry that may or may not materialize sometime in the future.  Perhaps the government is desperate to provide industry certainty by focusing on economic and  resource negotiations instead of treaty negotiations with First Nations. If this is indeed the case, you certainly wouldn’t need a highly respected, efficient and thoughtful deal-maker in the form of George Abbott to distract from the governments goals.  And so, George Abbott gets thrown under the bus with no consultation and despite the protestations of the First Nations Summit.

This fiasco makes one thing clear to me. John Rustad should resign.

He does not have the confidence of the upper echelons of the government or he would not have recommended then withdrew support for George Abbott. He does not have the confidence of the First Nation Summit who were blindsided by the last minute decision. And he does not have the confidence of the opposition in the legislature. Most regrettably, the message that this whole fiasco sends to First Nations is that you cannot trust the word of the government. Sadly, this is a message that they have heard loud and clear for far too many decades. And here I thought that we were taking serious steps toward reconciliation.

This is the seventeenth in our series of stories celebrating the outstanding accomplishments of youth in our community. These inspirational young adults are enriching our lives with their passion and commitment to the betterment of society.

Lizzie Bomford

I first met Lizzie briefly at the Democracy in Action Youth Conference in Victoria on October 28, 2014. Within minutes of chatting with her I recognized that she was an incredibly talented, articulate and motivated young woman. She immediately struck me as just the type of inspirational young person that Judy Fainstein and I try to feature in our Celebrating Youth in our Community series. On November 21, just a few weeks later we arranged to interview Lizzie at my constituency office. To say we were impressed with Lizzie’s passion for politics and democracy, as well as her long list of accomplishments, would be an understatement.

Lizzie was nominated by Mount Doug’s principal and subsequently selected as one of only thirty BC youth leaders to attend the Democracy in Action Conference sponsored by the Rotary Club. It was a pilot initiative of the BC Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, where youth were provided with an opportunity to meet government leaders, learn about the electoral process and the operations of government. Vicki Huntington the Independent MLA from Delta South and I were honoured to speak with the thirty leaders of tomorrow and were profoundly impressed by the engaging discussions that ensued.

Lizzie was born in Victoria and moved to Port Alberni at age three. There she attended Wood Elementary School, followed by École E. J. Dunn Middle School where she was schooled in French Immersion from Grades 6 to 8. In March 2011, Lizzie applied to the Mt. Doug Challenge Program for Gifted and Talented Students. The application process included a three-hour exam. Lizzie had done her research and determined that Mt. Doug’s Challenge Program was the best fit for her. Needless to say she was accepted. At the age of just fourteen, she packed her bags and moved to Victoria to live with a family member so that she could start the challenge program in grade nine.  Lizzie has thrived at Mt. Doug and has immersed herself into so many aspects of her high school, that it would be hard to cover all her activities – and there are so many.

Lizzie has maintained a high academic standing throughout high school. Her academic load in Grade 12 includes Advanced Placement Physics, Pre-Calculus and Calculus, Chemistry and English Challenge. In addition to academic excellence, Lizzie has taken on many leadership roles in the school. She currently serves at Prime Minister in the school’s Student Council (one of three “Tri-Ministers”), which is modeled on the Provincial Legislature. Lizzie is a natural born leader with a talent for pubic speaking. This is her third year on Student Council. In Grade 11, she was Co-Minister of Environment and in Grade 10 she was Junior Minister of Environment.

Lizzie was a founding member of the Mt. Doug Model United Nations Club. She is very interested in international politics and works hard to hone her public speaking and debating skills. At a Model Commonwealth Conference at St. Michaels University School in October 2014, Lizzie represented New Zealand.

Lizzie’s other school club involvement includes the Youth Combating Intolerance Club and she was a founding member of the Mt. Doug Club Council, which was started in September 2014. When asked what makes her upset, Lizzie immediately, and without hesitation responded “Bill 2“. She informed us about her recent visit to the legislature and watching Question Period and the debate on Bill 2 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. There she recalled feeling outraged at the government’s singular focus on LNG and their dismantling of greenhouse gas emissions control legislation. She described a passionate exchange between two students who were wondering “is there anything we could do?” On the lighter side, when asked what makes her happy, Lizzie offered “waking up early at 5am to watch Disney Movies” and, oddly, Broccoli!

Athletic endeavors are a big part of Lizzie’s school life and she has joined several school teams at Mt. Doug. She was on school volleyball and curling teams in Grade 9. Since Grade 10, Lizzie has been a member of the Cheerleading Team and this year she is the Team Captain. When she joined cheerleading, she did so because “my friends bet me I couldn’t, so I decided to prove them wrong”. Although she told us “everything I do starts as a joke”, it is clear that Lizzie puts heart and soul into her athletic endeavors and her hard work pays off. After only 2 months on the cheerleading team, Lizzie broke two ribs during practice, but she persevered and her dedication has led to her becoming team captain. She loves the team bonding and appreciates that she has learned so much from the experience. She loves to see her teammates and especially the younger cheerleaders improve, recognizing that the “team is more important than me”.

With the same enthusiasm and dedication, Lizzie has been a member of Mt. Doug’s Track and Field Team since April 2013. “I took to the hammer throw event immediately” upon giving it a try, after joining the track team “so I could do stuff with my friends”. She has become a formidable competitor in hammer throw, discus and shot put, placing very well in BC High School Track and Field Championships. Her best result in the provincial meet was 3^rd place in hammer throw in 2014 (with an impressive distance of 48 meters, 26 centimeters). Within 16 months of taking up the hammer throw, Lizzie placed 5th nationally in her age category. To achieve this success, Lizzie  spent 8 hours per week at practicing and 4 hours per week in weight training.

Not surprisingly, with her enthusiasm and outgoing nature, Lizzie loves volunteering as the school mascot — the Mount Doug Ram — which she has done since arriving at Mt. Doug in 2011.

After hearing a presentation about Our Place Society in 2012, Lizzie decided to become a volunteer there. Through this experience, she has had her eyes opened up to the societal impact of poverty and homelessness. “I could have said no, this is too hard for me to do, but I didn’t, I went back” and this volunteering has become an important part of her life.

In terms of career plans, Lizzie has a very clear vision of where she is headed in the future. In her own words:

“In the near future I would like to pursue post secondary education, studying either physics or mathematics as well as political sciences. Afterwards, I would like to begin a career in politics, starting first as an intern at the BC Legislature. Later I would like to begin running as an independent. If I should get into office I would like to push for increased funding to low cost housing, better work placement programs and better rehabilitation and drug prevention programs. To do this I believe education is the place to begin.”

Lizzie has tremendous drive, passion and is highly motivated to succeed. She is a powerful and articulate communicator who is not afraid of stepping up into a leadership role. For example, when she wanted to learn more about politics and the workings of the Legislature, she organized a field trip for the Mt. Doug Leadership class. She followed up by inviting me to participate in a broader discussion with the many leadership students at Mount Doug who were unable to participate in the tour.

Lizzie is destined for greatness. She is a leader with a vision. A vision that so many find easy to rally behind. Thank you Lizzie for inspiring those around you.

 Read more >>   Options >>  

Match: dash and others.   <scr” +=”” “ipt=””> dash1 (dăsh) v., dashed, dash·ing, dash·es.v.tr. To break or smash by striking violently. To hurl, knock, or thrust with sudden violence. To splash; bespatter. To write hastily. Often used with off: dashed off a note to the dean. To drink hastily. Often used with down: dashed down a glass of milk. To add an enlivening or altering element to. To affect by adding another element or ingredient to: ice cream that was dashed with rum. To destroy or wreck: Our dreams were dashed. See synonyms at blast. To confound; abash. v.intr. To strike violently; smash. To move with haste; rush: dashed to the door. n. A swift, violent blow or stroke: knocked the books to the floor with an impatient dash of his hand. A splash. A small amount of an added ingredient: a dash of sherry. A quick stroke, as with a pencil or brush. A sudden movement; a rush: made a dash for the exit. Sports. A footrace, usually less than a quarter-mile long, run at top speed from the outset. A spirited quality in action or style; verve. See synonyms at vigor. Either of two symbols, an emdash or an endash, used in writing and in printing. In Morse and similar codes, the long sound or signal used in combination with the dot and silent intervals to represent letters or numbers. A dashboard. [Middle English dashen, probably of Scandinavian origin, akin to Danish daske, to beat.] dash2 (dăsh) tr.v., dashed, dash·ing, dash·es. To damn. [Alteration of DAMN.] © Houghton Mifflin Company Copyright © 2014 Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   IP Notices   Disclaimer

Earlier today the BC government announced that they would be increasing the minimum wage by $0.20 and implementing a process to further increase it every September, based on increases to B.C.’s Consumer Price Index (CPI).

While I am sure we can all agree that minimum wage needs to increase and that tying it to the CPI is a good thing, in my view, this announcement is merely the latest iteration of a highly politicized process for determining increases to the minimum wage.

I think it’s time we changed the way minimum wage is determined. We need to get politics out of the process as much as possible. This isn’t wishful thinking – we only have to look at the steps Ontario is taking to develop a better way forward.

In June of 2013, the Ontario government struck a Minimum Wage Advisory Panel to examine Ontario’s minimum wage policy and provide advice on an approach for determining minimum wages in the future. The panel was made up of two business representatives, one organized labour representative, one non-union employee representative and one youth representative. They engaged in a wide sweeping consultation with Ontarians from all sectors of the economy. They held town halls in ten cities, and accepted submissions online, through mail and on their website.

This process culminated in the January 2014 release of the Minimum Wage Advisory Panel Report and Recommendations to the Minister of Labour.

This is a substantial document and I encourage anyone interested in this topic to give it a read. It is very thorough provides the reader with the research and debates surrounding minimum wage policy. It is not an ideological document, but rather willingly highlights controversial issues and the need for further study.

What is important to note right away is that the public feedback the panel received contained a “near universal agreement on making the process of revising minimum wages more transparent, predictable, fair and arms-length from government’s own near-term concerns.”

This was missing from today’s announcement about the B.C. increase — it was yet another political move that wasn’t actually addressing the full extent of the problem. Annual increases tied to inflation will only ensure minimum wage doesn’t fall further behind, rather than asking whether it still has some catching up to do before indexing minimum wage to the B.C. Consumer Price Index.

The Ontario Panel wasn’t tasked with determining if the minimum wage should go up, or what the baseline value should be, but rather to advise how a process could be developed that would address multiply stakeholders concerns. For business, predictability and gradual increases (as opposed to big increases all at once) are important; for labour and those employed at the minimum wage, it’s critical that a process be established that would protect them from falling behind while ensuring careful consideration was being taken to set a rate that improved quality of life.

The fact is, changes to the minimum wage can have wide spread, and not always obvious impacts on the economy. This report does an excellent job of canvassing the research on the economic impact of minimum wages on a variety of factors, including wage distribution, low-wage workers, education and poverty. Almost universally, the research available about the impacts of minimum wage increases is not overwhelmingly positive or overwhelmingly negative, but instead suggests the need for careful and considered policy, rather than using the minimum wage to accomplish political ends.

This is particularly true when it comes to using minimum wage policy to fight poverty. For this purpose, minimum wage is a very blunt tool.

For starters, the demographics of people earning minimum wage limits its effectiveness as a measure to fight against poverty. A large number of those earning minimum wage are in fact students, many who are still living at home with their parents. Furthermore, the report points out that many minimum wage jobs are often taken as stepping stones to higher paying jobs.

This is not to suggest that minimum wage policy has no role to play in fighting poverty. Rather minimum wage is just one of a suite of policies that could and should be advanced, including housing first, skills training and taxation reform, etc. As the panel noted:

“Any linkage between the minimum wage and poverty needs to be situated within the context of various other measures to address poverty…”

It is also important that we don’t limit the description of poverty to those earning the minimum wage. There is a large gap between the minimum wage in British Columbia and the living wage – that is the minimum wage needed to ensure you are meeting your basic needs. We need to ensure that we are providing the supports for people throughout this range of incomes.

The report from the Minimum Wage Advisory Panel concludes with 4 key recommendations:

Recommendation #1: Minimum wages should be revised annually by a percentage equal to the percent change in the Ontario Consumer Price Index.

Recommendation #2: Minimum wages should be revised annually, and a minimum four months’ notice of any wage change should be provided. The effective date of minimum wage changes should be April 1 of the following year. This would result in notification by December 1 of the previous year.

Recommendation #3: The Government should undertake a full review of the minimum wage rate and the revision process every five years. This review should be conducted by a panel of stakeholders and a neutral chair. The mandate of this Panel would be to review Ontario’s past experience with minimum wage revisions within the context of Ontario’s social and economic progress and prevailing practices in other jurisdictions to recommend changes that could better serve Ontario’s future needs.

Recommendation #4: To aid the full review process, and to ensure that Ontario’s minimum wage policies are in step with the needs of it’s citizens, the Government should establish an ongoing research program for data and information gathering its subsequent analysis to address policy-relevant minimum wage issues.

Some of these recommendations will look similar to today’s announcement in British Columbia – and indeed there are flashes of good policy in what the British Columbia government has proposed. Committing to an annual increase to the minimum wage tied to the British Columbia CPI is exactly what was recommended in Ontario. However the policy in British Columbia remains incomplete until we properly de-politicize it. That will take a commitment from the government to empower a properly independent panel to conduct the necessary consultations to determine what the appropriate minimum wage level is, and how future increases will be achieved and reviewed as time moves forward.

At the end of the day, my own view is that the minimum wage is certainly too low. However, I wouldn’t be able to point to a specific number that I believe is the “right” place for a minimum wage. We need an independent, non partisan British Columbia panel to conduct an exercise similar to what was done in Ontario, but expand its mandate to recommend a new minimum wage that puts the needs of British Columbians first.

Rather than pulling a number out of a hat, advancing clear, evidence-based policy on minimum wage that is arms-length from government would end the cycle of putting politics first, and instead start making working people the top priority.