Issues & Community Blog - Andrew Weaver: A Climate for Hope - Page 162

On Monday, February 23 2015, I tabled the BC Green Party petition of 6,662 British Columbians calling on the government to replace the regressive MSP premium poll tax with a more fair and equitable option to fund health care services in British Columbia.

Today in the legislature I was up during Question Period. I used this opportunity to question government on the possibility of empowering the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative, progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged in British Columbia?

As you will see from the exchange below, I was pleasantly surprised by the answer that I received. My response to the Minister’s use of a quote from Tommy Douglas is that Quebec and Ontario bring Health Care Premiums into their progressive income tax system as a line item that shows people what they are paying.

QUESTION

A. Weaver: In early January the good health committee at the Monterey seniors’ centre invited me to a conversation on health care. Collectively, these seniors were profoundly concerned about the impact that our regressive approach of charging flat-rate MSP premiums was having on their ability to make ends meet. And this is in the rather affluent riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Since raising this issue last month, I have heard from thousands of British Columbians who agree with me that it’s time to replace MSP premiums with a fair and equitable option. Fortunately, just yesterday the Government House Leader activated the Select Standing Committee on Health, a committee that could be empowered to examine this issue.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this: will he empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative, progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged in British Columbia?

RESPONSE

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. There will, through the estimates process, be an opportunity to discuss the question of the amount we collect and some of the relief that exists for almost a million British Columbians from paying full premiums. The member’s question is more specific, and that is whether or not this is a legitimate or appropriate topic for discussion by the committee.

I took the liberty of quickly checking the terms of reference. I think the power exists now. I think the committee, charged as it is to examine the projected impact of the provincial health care system on demographic trends to the year 2036 on a sustainable health care system for British Columbians…. Similarly, the motion that was before the House just a few days ago asked the committee to “outline potential alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of the significant cost drivers” identified in the original report and “consider health capital funding options.”

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

A. Weaver: I must admit I was not expecting that answer. I am pleasantly surprised, and I’m thrilled that the committee will, I hope, seek and explore means and ways of funding the MSP premium more progressively.

The reason why I’m asking this is that the time is right. The Maximus contract was renewed in 2013. I recognize there was a five-year renewable clause in it. Now is the time to work with Maximus to find new ways of not only saving government money — because this is about efficiency as much as it is about delivering services to people who can afford it, with means and ways that allow them to have these services affordably — but it’s about making it fair. It’s about bringing the revenue generation into the income tax system.

So my question to the minister is this. Will the minister consider, as every other province in the country does, bringing in our funding to MSP premiums through the income tax system, whether it be as a line item or as part of general revenues, to avoid the unnecessary bureaucracy associated with chasing after people who have recently lost their jobs and are being charged premiums based on last year’s income tax rate, chasing people who didn’t know they actually had to pay premiums because they are living abroad and so on? Will the minister consider this approach of using our income tax system for actually raising these premiums?

RESPONSE

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things come to mind. I don’t want to prejudge or presuppose what the committee might present in terms of thoughts or recommendations on this. I confess to a certain bias, and that runs counter to the suggestion that the member has offered about eliminating a very specific charge, tax levy, in favour of general taxation provisions.

If the committee is going to have the conversation…. I ran across this in anticipation of some of the conversations, and I wonder if I can share it with the House. It’s from a former Member of Parliament from B.C., an NDP Member of Parliament, who said this:

“I want to say that I think there is value in having every family and every individual make some individual  contribution. I think it has psychological value. I think it keeps the public aware of the cost and gives the people a sense of personal responsibility.

I would say to members of this House that even if we could finance the plan without a per capita tax, I personally would strongly advise against it. I would like it to be a nominal tax, but I think there is psychological value in people paying something for their cards.“

That wasn’t just any Member of Parliament. Before he was a Member of Parliament he was the Premier of Saskatchewan. That was Tommy Douglas in 1961, addressing a special session that created.

I hope the committee will be mindful of all of these ideas as it considers these matters.

Following Question Period, we issued a media release on the exchange. It is reproduced below.

Media Release

Media Statement: February 26, 2015
Health Committee Empowered to Examine MSP Premium Reform

For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Today, in response to a question from Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, the Government House Leader and Minister of Finance agreed that the Select Standing Committee on Health would have the power to examine progressive ways of financing the Medical Services Plan and report on its findings.

“There are clear, progressive alternatives to MSP premiums that would be efficient, cost effective and affordable,” said Andrew Weaver. “I was pleasantly surprised that the Minister agreed that part of the Committees mandate could be to examine these alternatives.”

Currently, British Columbia is the only province in Canada charging a separate, flat-rate fee for medical premiums. The MSP rate is rising under the 2015 Budget by 4% – from $72 to $75 per month for individuals and from $130.50 to $136 for families. The same fee applies to anyone, whether they earn $30,000 or $3,000,000 in a year.

In contrast, both Ontario and Quebec made medical premiums a line item in their personal income tax return. By doing so, they maintained an essential revenue source for health care while reducing the burden on low and fixed income individuals.

MSP premiums are forecast to bring in nearly $2.3 billion in the 2014/15 fiscal year approaching the amount of revenue that is accrued from corporate income taxes. Reforming how this revenue is collected by, for instance, making MSP a line-item in the annual personal income tax return, would turn this regressive tax into one that is fairly applied based on income, while saving costs associated with administration and non-payment collection.

“I understand that the government has concerns about how changes to this tax would affect their financial objectives,” said Andrew Weaver. “Empowering one of our standing committees allows these objectives to be preserved, while also exploring how MSP Premiums can be made to be more affordable for British Columbians. I look forward to presenting practical alternatives to this committee and working with them to bring reform to the way MSP Premiums are charged in our Province.”

-30-

Media Contact

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

Since I was first elected in 2013 I have participated in countless votes on motions, legislation, and budgets. In every single instance I have carefully considered how I should use my one vote to best represent the British Columbia I wanted to help create.

I am one of only two members in this Legislature who doesn’t have their vote decided for them by their party. That means, I am also one of only two MLAs whose vote on the budget isn’t a foregone conclusion. Before we even see the budget, we know that all BC Liberal MLAs will support it and that all BC NDP MLAs will oppose it.

This is a problem. I believe that MLAs have a responsibility to base their positions on evidence, to contribute ideas, not just criticism, and to first and foremost represent their constituents, not their parties.

MLAs are given a single vote to indicate broad support or opposition to the full suite of measures that are contained in the budget—both those that we agree with and those that we disagree with. It is impossible to properly represent the complexity of a budget vote by just looking at the vote itself. That’s why I always post my entire budget response, where I lay out my praise and concerns in detail.

After carefully reading through this budget, I found that I could not support it.

It has become increasingly clear that there is a growing trend where the government takes small steps on the periphery to make peoples’ lives better, without addressing the fundamental systemic and structural issues that underpin our biggest challenges—including affordability, sustainability and economic prosperity.

This includes how we fund government services. Through a combination of complacency and choice this government has come to rely on low and middle income British Columbians paying more than many can afford. In doing so, we help perpetuate and add to the growing affordability crisis we have in B.C.

Instead, we need government leadership that is bold enough to tackle these important structural issues. This includes shifting the way we fund government away from regressive user fees like MSP premiums, towards more progressive options, like income taxes. It also means taking real, concerted steps to mitigate and adapt to the economic, social and environmental effects climate change will have on our province. We can also be making smart targeted investments to support the development of 21st century industries like the clean tech sector, rather than simply relying on 20th century fossil fuel industries.

These are just a few alternatives that I offered in my response to the budget and my response to the throne speech.

We need leaders who will pursue opportunities and address our challenges before they arrive on our doorstep, not after. We need leadership that recognizes the importance of not only living within our means financially, but also socially and environmentally.

In November the Minister of Agriculture committed to meeting with me to discuss how British Columbia could end the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia. We subsequently 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 legislation to ban the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins.

Yesterday, I received the Minister’s response that I reproduce below.

I am disappointed with the response. 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. In the legal opinion I tabled in the Legislature and provided to the Minister, this is an area that falls within provincial jurisdiction. Instead the Minister deferred to federal jurisdiction concerning what can be imported into Canada and what can be harvested in our coastal waters.

Sadly, this response is not what I was hoping for.

Today in the legislature I was given the opportunity to respond to last week’s budget.

In the details of my speech below, you will see that I have tried to highlight both what I support in the budget and what I do not support.

Every MLA in BC could probably point to a number of items in the budget that he or she supports. Every MLA could probably point to a number of items in the budget that he or she does not support. Every MLA almost certainly has a wish list of things not included in the budget. And every MLA likely has a different set of priorities for funding. But ultimately, each MLA must weigh the cumulative positive aspects of the budget against its cumulative negative aspects and vote accordingly.

To summarize my view, while this operating budget might well be fiscally balanced, it is neither socially nor environmentally balanced. It fails the test of triple bottom line accountability.

Below is the text of my speech. I welcome your comments and ideas.

Response to the 2015 BC Budget

Preamble

Since my election in 2013, I’ve participated in countless votes on legislation, or sections within legislation. In each and every vote, the official opposition has voted as one. In all but one vote, every member of government has voted as one. And in that one vote, the members from Abbotsford-Mission, Chilliwack-Hope, Maple Ridge-Mission and Surrey Panorama only voted in committee stage against section 115 of Bill 17, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This section granted transgender people the ability to apply to the registrar general for an amendment to the sex designation on their birth registration. Honourable Speaker, while I disagreed fundamentally with the position of these four members, I respected their courage to vote the way they saw fit.

For the past two years Honourable Speaker, I’ve been one of only two MLAs in this chamber whose vote wasn’t a foregone conclusion — the other of course being the Member for Delta South.

Perhaps we might reflect on this for a moment … in a chamber of 84 voting MLAs elected across British Columbia to represent the best interests of their constituents, only two MLAs are not subject to collective group-think exemplified by whipped voting.

Let’s focus specifically on the budget. It doesn’t simply deal with one small area of government policy – it contains the spending for every single Ministry and government program. Each of us could probably point our finger to a number of items in the budget that we like. Each of us could point to a number of items in the budget that we don’t like. Each of us has a wish list of things not included in the budget. And each of us has a different set of priorities.

But the fact is, there are also things we can agree on. We all want health care to be funded. We all want to see government create a favourable environment for small business. We want our infrastructure to be in good condition. We all want clean air and water. And we all want to live in a safe environment.

In fact, I suspect that like me, the Official Opposition supports a number of the government’s new budget initiatives: more funding for Cancer prevention, for instance, or new funding for students who want to focus on programs in the trades. These are rather difficult initiatives to be against.

It is here where I feel it’s appropriate to comment on one of the most absurd rhetorical devices that exists in our political culture.

That is, the notion that if you vote against the budget, you therefore don’t support anything in it. This of course is closely aligned with the equally absurd notion that if you vote for the budget, you are in favour of everything it contains.

It’s this cynical and simplistic narrative that pollutes our political culture. It drives misinformation and creates a void between people and their elected representatives.

We are smart enough to know that most of the debates we have outside of this chamber have more than two sides. Why then do we pretend such nuance does not exist on votes inside the legislature?

This simplistic thinking needs to be cut from our collective discourse. It serves no purpose other than to drive deep wedges between us and to turn the public off important political debates.

As MLAs, we are given a single vote to indicate broad support or opposition to the full suite of measures contained within a budget. We are not asked to vote on every item.

The virtue of representing the Green Party in the House—whether officially recognized or not—is that I can separate my political support or opposition to an idea from the question of who brought it forward. I do not make decisions according to the out-dated framing of left vs. right, or BC NDP vs. BC Liberal, or government vs. opposition.

I base my positions on the evidence that I see at the time, and look for opportunities to contribute my own ideas to improve our province.

This is the approach I have taken with the previous two budgets introduced in the legislature. Despite much to disagree with in both the government’s choices and approach, I wanted to demonstrate an open and honest commitment to compromise. I wanted to make it very clear that I will not prejudge an idea based on its source.

I also didn’t view a vote on the budget as the be all and end all of my interaction with the government. Instead, I viewed it merely as a starting point.

I have spent much of the past two years working hard in an attempt to bring new ideas forward for consideration. I have tried to shine light on issues that have been allowed to slip through the cracks, and to offer substantive feedback and criticism when I feel the government is making the wrong decision. To be honest, I think it’s my job to do so.

I think this point is important – I have not been rushed in either my criticism or my support for government. I look to understand what they are saying before responding.

I want it to matter when I raise an issue – I want my concerns to have some weight.

With this in mind, I turn to the budget at hand.

The 2015 Budget

There was an exchange last week between the Finance Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition that perfectly captures my discontentment and frustration with this budget.

During question period on February 18th, the Official Opposition focused in on the government’s move to reduce the income taxes paid by those earning more than $150,000 a year.

In responding to the questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Finance Minister went into detail about benefits that accrue to British Columbia residents earning less than $19,000 who pay no tax.

He highlighted the small tax credits that were accruing to families — both low income and otherwise — as proof of a concerted effort to make people’s lives better.

Lost in this dance of rhetorical questions and condescending answers, this dance of dysfunction that plays out in this chamber far too often, was the real question, the pressing question, the fundamental question: how is it that we have people earning less than $19,000 in the Province of British Columbia and how do they possibly make ends meet?

Why was this not the central issue of what was discussed? Why was it not the focus of the debate? Why was the government celebrating the fact that it has the fiscal space to offer boutique tax credits, when there are more pervasive, structural issues that need to be addressed? Why are we not taking concrete steps to address them?

It is this last question that is particularly important. The government seems to be asleep at the wheel, driving blindly in the dark without noticing what is happening around them, who they are leaving behind, or what damage is being caused. Honourable speaker, there are many people in this province who truly need their help.

As I said earlier, there must be more to opposition than blind criticism. Legislation must be weighed not on its source but on its value. And the budget that stands before us is not without certain merits.

$12.5 million dollars have been set aside for a world class Cancer Prevention Centre. It’s difficult for me to capture in words the terrible effects of this disease and the heartbreak left in its wake. There are few in this province, and indeed this chamber, that have not felt, either directly or indirectly, its pain. I believe I can stand with my colleagues on both sides of the house as I lend my whole-hearted support to this provision in the budget.

Government has also finally begun to listen to the call echoed across the province, for a more diversified economy. It’s something I’ve been calling for since before I was elected. Government has made important investments in our creative economy, extending tax credits to film, television and video game and other interactive digital media industries. They have made investments at Camosun College, alongside other institutions, as part of a larger post-secondary skills program.

These steps, however tepid, could mark a change for British Columbia; a shift away from that single minded pipedream that has, for far too long, dominated this government’s focus. But after two years racing towards a mirage, it is not enough to inch back to reason. We must move with the same vigour as the government did with LNG to shape a sustainable and diversified 21^st century economy.

Finally, this government continues to prioritize and put forward a budget that emphasizes living within our means as a critical objective. I too believe this to be critical. It’s irresponsible for us not to ensure that our province lives within its means.

While the government’s balanced operating budget is certainly a laudable feat, it unfortunately does not reach far enough. Boasts of surplus and growth fall flat on the thousands of British Columbians who are struggling to make ends meet. The goal of government should not solely be a strong economy but an economy, which strengthens all British Columbians. While this operating budget might well be fiscally balanced, it is neither socially nor environmentally balanced. It fails the test of triple bottom line accountability.

Here’s my concern. I have sat in this chamber for two years now, listening to this government state that it cannot do more for low and middle income British Columbians until the economy grows—that there simply is not enough room in the budget to help single parents, seniors on fixed incomes or the men and women who spend their nights on the street because they have nowhere else to go.

In response, I have offered viable, cost-effective policies that the government could adopt to make life more affordable for British Columbians—most of which either save money in the long-term or don’t cost anything at all. I did so with the recognition that my role as an MLA is to contribute realistic, affordable solutions to the challenges we face.

However, with the tabling of the 2015 budget, we are witnessing a growing trend where the government takes small steps on the periphery to make peoples’ lives better, instead of addressing the fundamental systemic and structural issues that underpin those challenges. With so many British Columbians struggling to get by, we simply cannot afford to neglect these structural issues any longer.

Here’s what I mean:

Right now, we have the second highest income inequality rate in the country and the highest rate of wealth inequality. We are the only province in Canada without a comprehensive poverty reduction plan, despite half a million British Columbians living in poverty—over 160,000 of whom are children. Eighteen percent of our students don’t graduate high school within six years of completing grade eight—and that number rises to 54 percent for aboriginal students. Four of our cities rank among the five least affordable cities in Canada. The list goes on.

The inequities that plague our province exist, in part, because of clear choices that have been made by this government. In order to maintain the illusion of low corporate and personal income taxes, the government has raised regressive user fees like MSP premiums, BC Hydro Rates and ICBC rates. Instead of relying on a progressive tax system where government revenue is drawn according to an individual’s financial means, these regressive user fees target all British Columbians with the same set rates, regardless of whether their income is high enough to afford it.

To counterbalance the growing affordability crisis, I acknowledge that the government has taken a small, yet important, step by ending the claw back on income supports for single mothers. While steps such as this one are incredibly important, they barely touch the systemic challenges that perpetuate an affordability crisis in British Columbia. And besides, the fact that this mean-spirited, punitive, claw back ever existed at all is indicative of a government that has lost touch with the people it is supposed to represent.

Meanwhile, as user fees continue to rise, the government has taken steps, like it did in this budget, to phase out the $150,000 tax bracket for the top two percent of income earners. I recognize that when that tax bracket was first introduced, it was done so with the promise that it would only last for two years. But the rationale at the time was that the government would not need the extra revenue because of its promised wealth and prosperity for one and all from its spinning LNG Hail Mary pass of hope wrapped in hyperbole.

But here we are, two years later. While the Hail Mary pass was indeed caught on May 14, 2013 delivering a Liberal Majority government, it was subsequently fumbled. It was given a mandate to deliver on a promise. It didn’t and it won’t. While the government will attempt to deflect blame on market prices, external pressures, third parties and so forth, the reality is that even despite their generational sell out exemplified in the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, ironically supported by the official opposition, the government has failed to deliver as I knew it would. For more than two years now I have been pointing out that the economics did not and still does not support the government’s reckless LNG promises in a market oversupplied with natural gas and in a jurisdiction that is years behind others in terms of developing an LNG industry.

Honourable Speaker, I strongly support the amendment put forward by the member from Surrey-Whalley. It is imperative that the government report out to British Columbians on where we stand with respect to its failed promises.

Yet this discussion is also indicative of a larger problem.

At a time when the government claims it cannot find enough money for affordable housing and other measures, it is eliminating the tax bracket on the highest two percent of income earners, and foregoing $227 million dollars a year that could be invested in programs that help make our province more affordable.

Here’s the point: It can’t simply be about whether or not there is a tax cut for the top 2% or a $3 rise in MSP premiums. We need to start talking about what those policies represent and what they collectively lead to. Through a combination of complacency and choice we have created a funding structure for our government that relies on low and middle income British Columbians paying more than many can afford.

In the context of the affordability crisis B.C. faces, measures like these at best perpetuate, and at worst add to the inequality that exists in our province.

The conversation we need to be having is not about the individual measures we’re taking to slightly increase the quality of life of British Columbians, but whether over the long-term these policies collectively foster an affordable, just and prosperous society in British Columbia. My concern right now is that we are moving in the wrong direction.

We have a nearly one billion-dollar surplus from the last fiscal year and additional surpluses projected for the next three fiscal years. Compared to a 46 billion dollar budget, that surplus is admittedly modest. Yet, so are many of the steps that we could take with this budget to make smarter, more targeted investments that move us further towards tackling the systemic issues perpetuating our affordability crisis.

Where we go from here

Going forward, we can do better. We need to have the courage to re-envision BC’s path to prosperity. Developing a 21st Century economy — one that is environmentally, socially and economically prosperous — is not about spending more — it’s about spending smarter with proactive, targeted investments.

As British Columbians, we are incredibly fortunate to be so wealthy in both opportunity and potential. We already have the foundation needed to be at the cutting edge of a 21st century economy: a highly educated workforce, renewable energy options, and beautiful towns and cities that people around the world want to move to. We can leverage this potential to foster an affordable, 21st century economy. Here are a few ideas for how to get there:

A budget for a 21st century economy would restructure tax credits and incentives to encourage the transition to a low-carbon economy and to foster a more progressive funding source for government. Rather than offering marginal boutique tax credits, taken from the Harper Tory playbook, for political gains, it would ensure that government revenue is based on an equitable, progressive use of our tax system. It would also use a portion of the nearly one billion dollar 2014/15 surplus to invest in affordability and to support those in need.

While we get ourselves organized to tackle the bigger issue, we need to tend to the low hanging fruit. Changes that incur no cost to government but make a big difference to British Columbians who are struggling. The Legislation of creditor protection for Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP) and Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSP), for example, is long overdue. This simple change will help children saving for their education and individuals with disabilities feel more financially secure and protected in times of personal economic crises. Similarly, making MSP premiums a line item in the progressive Personal Income Tax system would be a quick way to both save on administrative costs and reduce the net burden on low and fixed income individuals while ensuring no revenue is lost to government.

Investing in the health, happiness, and success of this generation and the next starts with education. Five years of labour peace, quite frankly, is not enough. We must not aim for temporary peace — but rather for a new relationship. What I find so concerning about the way this budget deals with education is that yet again government is failing in establishing a new relationship with those who administer and provide education to our children. Whether you agree or disagree with the administrative cuts, what I think is unacceptable is that they appear to have caught school boards off guard. How is the goal of fostering trust served when those who structure our education budgets are in the dark about the resources government is willing to provide them.

Even where government is making investments in education, I would challenge them to broaden their vision. Under the BC Jobs Plan, training focuses on trade skills. It’s good we are training new carpenters, electricians and welders to help build our traditional energy industries. But what about 21st century industries? What about high tech, biotech and cleantech? It seems like we are only training for an LNG-o-centric 20th Century fossil-fuel economy, not the future. We should also be focusing our educational investment on up-and-coming sectors like the cleantech sector that create well-paying, long-term, local jobs that grow our economy while supporting a healthy environment.

Companies like Google, for example, have committed to making the use of clean energy a priority. Currently only 35% of Google’s operations run on renewables. They are actively looking for new locations near green power sources where they can sustainably grow and develop, and many other tech companies are following suit. The government has repeatedly presented their floundering LNG industry as a “generational opportunity.” If we started to capitalize on our renewable energy options instead of clinging on to last century’s dinosaur resources, perhaps we could find and sustain that generational opportunity in cleantech.

British Columbians deserve a government brave enough to see beyond their term and bold enough to make proactive investments, while living within our means. Much like the positive correlation between education level and future health, economic well-being, and longevity, there are many other investments our government could be making to improve the lives of British Columbians and save money down the road. A study released last week from the University of Waterloo, for instance, found that standardizing physical activity programs in Ontario would reduce the $6.8 billion dollar cost associated with sedentary lifestyles in their province. Providing housing options for the chronically homeless is another issue I have spoken at length about. It saves money in the long term by reducing the strain on social, health and justice services.

In light of the increasing costs we have already started to incur from global warming, we have no choice but to start shifting to an economy that takes these threats into account. A paper from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research released earlier this month analyzed the importance of pairing carbon pricing with clean technologies in a more effective policy package. “If we want to contain the impacts of climate change,” they wrote, “it is essential to start comprehensive and meaningful mitigation policies between 2015 and 2020. Otherwise, both risks and costs increase substantially.”

We all know climate change is more than an environmental issue – its impact on the economy will be equally devastating. Even if one prefers to selfishly only concern oneself with the regional ramifications of global warming, the outlook isn’t any better. As we see from indicator shifts in the larger trend of environmental change, local B.C. economies are already being hit — and hit hard. The mountain pine beetle has devastated our lodgepole pine forests. Acidification and warming ocean temperatures are threatening Vancouver Island’s shellfish industries, for example, with scallop death rates in Qualicum Beach rising to nearly 95% since 2010. And, as all of the disappointed skiers in the room know, Mount Washington, now with its 15 cm base, closed on February 9 and still awaits snow after another warm winter.

Though there is no easy solution to the problems we face, we do have options in the steps we take to improve the situation. In addition to carbon pricing — a polluter-pays model of reducing emissions —- technology support schemes can take various forms: from feed-in tariffs to quotas or tax credits for low-emission electricity sources, to direct or indirect support for technological innovation and carbon capture and storage techniques.

Conclusion

So where does all this leave us? I have gone through the merits and the shortcomings of this budget. I have offered a critique of the government’s approach, and have articulated a few examples of concrete steps we could take to move us towards an affordable, sustainable 21st century economy.

I would suggest however, that we must return to where I began in my speech.

If we are to make any real progress, we cannot continue to evaluate critical budget decisions through simplistic and divisive notions of black and white, us-versus-them politics. The challenges are too great and the solutions too complex for us to continue being distracted by partisan positioning.

We need to start with a basic commitment that we will all read the budget before deciding how we will vote for it. To do anything else, is to put ignorance and divisiveness above informed decision-making and a genuine willingness to work together for the betterment of British Columbians.

We need to see budget votes for what they are: a single vote to indicate broad support or opposition to the full suite of measures contained within a budget. There will always be aspects we agree and disagree with; it is impossible to fully represent this complexity with a single vote, which is why we also speak to our decisions in these debates.

And we must have the courage to vote on behalf of our constituents, not our parties. It is the citizens of British Columbia who sent us here to represent them. It is the citizens of British Columbia who experience the short-term consequences of the decisions we make in this chamber. And it is the next generation of British Columbians who ultimately have to live the long-term consequences of our decisions. Each of us needs to reflect on this as we ponder how we will vote.

As part of our series on poverty and homelessness we asked people to consider sharing a story about their experiences. Sharing these stories serves as a reminder that poverty and homelessness are not a choice. It’s important for us to end the stigma and stereotypes that are too often associated with these issues. Each of us has followed a different path from the past to the present. Yet some of our paths have been rockier than others.

This week we are pleased to offer the seventh of these stories. We are grateful to the Victoria Cool Aid Society for providing it to us. Working in partnership with others to develop community-based solutions, Cool Aid provides emergency shelter, supportive housing, integrated health care and other support services to those in need.  

Next Steps Transitional Shelter

Helping over 9,000 people in the Capital Region every year, the Cool Aid Society is one of the leading service providers for people who are homeless and is the largest provider of supportive housing outside of the Lower Mainland, for people who have been homeless.

Last year alone, over 1,700 individuals stayed in Cool Aid shelters  and over 4,000 patients received primary health care at the Cool Aid Community Health Centre. Additionally, Cool Aid currently operates 374 apartments for people who have been homeless and this year they will begin construction of Cottage Grove Apartments in Saanich, for seniors who are currently homeless.

Cool Aid’s Next Steps Transitional Shelter, provides an opportunity for 15 emergency shelter clients to access the resources and services they need to get their lives back on track. Such services include housing, employment, financial, life skills and mentorship, as well as physical and mental health services. ‘J’ is one of those clients:

“I have spent seven years of my life on the streets of Victoria, mostly under a bridge. Life was hard, life was cold. I had tried to make the transition from streets to housing before. Unfortunately, I never had the resources to stay in housing nor the skills for the job to pay my bills.

At the beginning of this last attempt to get off the streets I heard about this place called Next Steps run by the Cool Aid Society. What they had to offer was exactly what would help me do the transition properly. I will be attending school while staying at Next Steps. I will be gaining the skill set to get a job that will pay the bills and that I will thoroughly enjoy.

The impact of all of this will be far reaching and impact my life in such a tremendous way. Next Steps is offering a chance to produce positive, outstanding people who used to think they had no chance. Next Steps has a lot to offer me and any person wanting to make the best change one can make. From under a bridge to under a roof.”