Today in the legislature we debated Bill 4: Witness Security Act, 2019 at second reading. This bill would establish a witness security management and support program in British Columbia. Witnesses are essential to justice in our province. They come forward, often at great personal risk, to help us ensure a safe and a just society. The least we can do is to protect them in return.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my brief remarks.

Video of Remarks

Text of Remarks

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand in support of Bill 4, the Witness Security Act, 2019. This bill takes the important and necessary step of establishing a provincial witness security program.

As you know, hon. Speaker, witnesses are essential to justice in our province. They come forward, often at great personal risk, to help us ensure a safe and a just society. The least we can do is to protect them in return.

Although the federal witness program does its best to protect these individuals, delays and strict program requirements have resulted in low witness retention. This, in turn, has hampered the administration of justice in British Columbia. By establishing a provincial program now, we are following the same path that other provinces, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan — at least temporarily — as well as Manitoba have followed.

As members are aware, public trust in British Columbia’s government has been rather shaken of late. Money-laundering and its connection to the crises involving real estate and opioids have abounded in the newspapers. There have been serious allegations made in our own legislature that point to a culture of entitlement and abuse of power.

In light of these events, it’s more important than ever that we restore the public trust by improving our justice system. British Columbians must trust our judicial system, not only to hold people accountable for their actions but to protect the people who do an immense public service by coming forward as witnesses.

I’m pleased to see this legislation before us today, as it, in my view and the view of my caucus colleagues, marks another step forward in restoring public trust in British Columbia.

With that, I thank you for your attention and take my place in the debate.

Budget estimate debates for the Ministry of Advanced Education were held on March 7. I took the opportunity to ask the Minister about the status of government’s review of progress made at British Columbia postsecondary institutions towards the implementation of sexualized violence & misconduct policies.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the exchange. As you will see from the response, government has established a working group comprising of students, institution staff and a community organization resource was convened in December 2018.

The working group reviewed the feedback received and provided input to the development of a draft action plan for the minister’s consideration. Review of institution policies was an area considered by the working group.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My final area for canvassing is with respect to the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act that was brought in under the previous government. Under the act, the minister can direct a post-secondary institution to conduct a survey or to review its sexual misconduct policy in order to determine its effectiveness.

We’re aware that a survey was actually done on the effectiveness of this legislation and post-secondary policies. So my question is…. I’ve a number of questions here. Are there plans for a more substantial review of these policies in the future, and if yes, what is the timeline for that?

Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member opposite for the question. I first want to acknowledge his advocacy. I want to acknowledge the former government’s efforts to put a law into place. I want to acknowledge that these steps will lead, hopefully, to better safety and outcomes for people.

Most of the institutions formalized their policies in 2017, and the legislation requires institutions to review their policies every three years, whether the minister directs it or not. Most institutions will be undertaking reviews prior to May 2020. These reviews are required to include student consultation. Institutions are responsible for the review of their policies in determining what amendments or additions may be needed to best meet the needs of their students and campuses.

Further to the survey that was undertaken by the ministry as part of an outreach engagement campaign in the winter of 2017-2018 after we formed government, a working group comprised of students, institution staff and a community organization resource was convened in December 2018.

The working group reviewed the feedback received and provided input to the development of a draft action plan for the minister’s consideration. Review of institution policies was an area considered by the working group. We will be working closely with the institutions over the next several months to further explore next steps.

I can assure the member opposite that recommendations are being drafted as we speak. I’m anxiously awaiting what the students and the working group has had to say. We as a government are committed to moving forward to ensure that we address student safety on campus.

The Chair: Member, and noting the hour.

A. Weaver: I must note the hour, hon. Chair. I would suggest that, perhaps, it is appropriate for the minister to note said hour, and I’ll take my place and allow it.

The Chair: Go ahead with your question. Just that this will likely be the last question.

A. Weaver: I will make a comment. I appreciate the answer from the minister. Of course, different institutions have a different capacity to actually introduce and enable these sexualized violence and misconduct policies. Some institutions have been more successful than others.

We have also undertaken an attempt to receive feedback from various institutions across the province, particularly of student groups. There is differing and varied implementation, and I certainly look forward to the recommendations coming forward from that group, because there is a lot of work that needs to be done.

Of course, as the minister will know, institutions do not want sexualized violence issues to be public because institutions want to be branded safe institutions for their student body. There’s an inherent desire to keep this under the radar, so to speak, and one of the purposes of introducing the policy measures last time was to ensure that institutions grapple with the very real problem that’s ongoing. I look forward to the results.

In September, the ministry began an information campaign. This campaign featured posters that implied that rape culture is wrong. These posters, however, were not very informative. Students need information about the supports that are available to them.

I had a series of questions here. I can just toss them all out at the same time, because the minister should’ve received these in advance. Who did the ministry consult in the design of these posters? Will this information campaign be continuing next year? Will there be a substantive review of the effectiveness of this campaign? How will the ministry incorporate support resource information into the posts going forward?

Hon. M. Mark: Again, thank you for raising the important issue. If we’re talking about making systemic change, we have a law. The law led to policies. The policies, when I came on as minister, were found on some websites — if you had a password or not. I’m not trying to be critical, but I didn’t think it was good enough to have policies on a website that means nothing to students.

We wanted to reach out to students who told me as minister, when I visited all of the campuses, that this was a serious issue. And it’s one that takes great courage for people to come forward to say: “I’ve been a victim.”

Regardless of who you are, I’m not telling you what the face is. That was the point of the campaign. The campaign was: we don’t know what that face is, and let’s not generalize. Let’s not stereotype that it’s a guy or girl.

Part of the idea of Tinder…. I’m not familiar with Tinder; I’m married, for those of you watching at home. Tinder — you know, swipe right, swipe left. That was the idea. The idea was to try to capture a younger audience. I’m not 22. I’m not going to university anymore, where we know that young people are on their phones. And we wanted a campaign that was going to be somewhat provocative.

I heard from students, who said: “Hey, we weren’t really expecting this from the minister.” It was a step and a strategy that we’re doing. We have a working group that is giving us as a ministry a lot of suggestions and recommendations and advice on what we should do to address this very, very serious issue. But when it comes time for the campaign…. The campaign was timed to meet the highest points of risk, the first two weeks of school. We launched the campaign again in January, with the highest points of risk in school.

I can’t answer your question about whether or not we will relaunch the same campaign. I’m taking direction advice from the students who have taken their time to tell me how we should address this systemic issue. There will be more to come, but that was, in essence, the premise of how we came up with the campaign. Was it enough? We wanted a campaign that could speak for itself. Part of it was to get people talking.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report completion of the resolution of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, report progress on the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training and ask leave to sit again.

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask both the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, as well as the Minister of Education, how the upcoming poverty reduction strategy will ensure that all children and youth have equal access to menstrual products.

Coincidentally, today was also the launch of United Way’s Period Promise, a campaign designed to raise donations for, and awareness of, the financial challenge facing women struggling to make ends meet.

As you will see from the exchange (reproduced in video and text below), I was very encouraged by the responses from both Ministers.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: The 2018 child poverty report card found that one in five children in British Columbia are currently growing up in poverty. That’s over 172,000 children, many of whom are in deep poverty, up to $13,000 below the poverty line.

We also know that these children are very likely to be Indigenous, immigrants or racialized minorities. These children often go to school hungry. Their families are worried about basic necessities, such as shelter and groceries.

Now, consider the approximately 86,000 impoverished children and youth who require menstrual products on a monthly basis. Consider the fact that most families under the poverty line are single mothers and their children. For many individuals, managing menstruation can require additional products of birth control.

Through you Honourable Speaker to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, how will the upcoming poverty reduction strategy ensure that all children and youth have equal access to menstrual products?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you to the member for the question.

The cost and availability of menstrual products is a real issue, especially for poor women who often face the choice of purchasing those products or buying other essentials, including food. This should not be the case.

We all expect when we enter a public washroom that toilet paper is readily available and free. Why that isn’t the case for menstrual products is a very good question. One, I suspect, that if men had a menstrual cycle, we wouldn’t be asking today.

The member’s question is particularly timely today. The Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity has kicked off the Period Promise campaign here at the Legislature. People can support that campaign through donations of products or cash at the Finance Minister’s office until March 28, and those will go to a very good purpose.

But more directly to the member’s inquiry, this is a societal question. It requires societal change, and as it impacts women — particularly, poor women — it’s an affordability question. Affordability is a cornerstone of the poverty reduction work in front of our government, and we’re taking that work on.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the very thoughtful answer to the question. My supplemental is this.

Last week the New Westminster school board announced that they will be providing free menstrual products in all of their elementary, middle and high schools beginning this September. This will not only reduce costs faced by financially struggling families; it will improve access to education for girls and non-binary folk who menstruate.

We know that students, if they can’t manage their periods, will remove themselves from extracurricular activities and even miss school. Providing menstrual products gives all children equal access to education. But this program places a financial cost on school districts that are already strapped for funds and facing teacher shortages.

My question is to the Minister of Education. All children deserve equal access to education. What is his ministry doing to provide menstrual products for students in British Columbia?

Answer

Hon. R. Fleming: I would thank the member for the question. It’s obviously a very important issue for students across British Columbia. When students can’t access menstrual products, it can often impede their ability to participate in sports or extracurricular activities, or maybe they even have to miss learning time by having to miss classes.

We see this initiative that New Westminster has undertaken as an important part of promoting an overall student success agenda that the government has in working with our school district partners. I want to take this opportunity to commend the New West district for showing the lead here. It’s a great initiative; there’s no question about that.

It has also garnered some interest from school districts. I expect to be meeting with our education partners about this particular issue — the school trustee association, among them. I would say in the meantime that we do have some existing funding streams that can be assessed to do what New Westminster has done in other parts of the province. The CommunityLINK fund is one of those that may be an area where they can pay for menstrual products.

I want to say, too, on a personal note that I thank the United Way and, in my community, the Victoria Labour Council for the Period Promise campaign. I was pleased to go out personally and make some donations last week when they were doing a fundraising. Those activities are ongoing during this campaign. It’s very promising, and it has led to a very productive discussion in the school district.

I think this is an issue that fits with our government’s overall affordability agenda, and we’re happy to engage in that discussion with school districts.

Today in the legislature I introduced Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019.

This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the introduction of the bill along with the accompanying press release.

Video of Introduction

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be now read a first time. This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.

A new term “occupant violence” is defined in the bill and makes it explicit that the regulations listing which professionals and practitioners are authorized to provide a confirmation statement about family violence have the same powers in cases involving occupant violence.

The written third-party verification can be provided by police, listed medical practitioners, counsellors, First Nations support workers, victim support workers, among others. Having regulations that extend verification powers beyond law enforcement is vital, as not all survivors will be able or willing to involve the police.

In cases of domestic violence, risk of injury or death can actually increase if a violent partner learns their spouse has contacted police or is planning on leaving. Having a range of professionals able to vouch for victims will allow them to choose the safest option for their situations.

The previous B.C. Liberal government did a superb job with the development of these regulations. “Sexual abuse” is explicitly listed under occupant violence. “Sexual abuse” is used rather than “sexual assault” for violence because it aligns with and is already defined in existing laws, such as the Adult Guardianship Act and because it is a broader term that includes sexual assault and sexualized violence.

By using the word “including” before the list of crimes covered by occupant violence, the law is kept inclusive of a range of situations that could fit the broader intent, rather than explicitly specifying which situations would be covered.

No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator. This bill supports survivors.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M2016, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus tables Residential Tenancy Amendment Act to expand protections, supporting survivors
For immediate release
March 7, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. ‚— The B.C. Green Caucus has introduced an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act that, if passed, would provide tenants with the ability to end their fix term lease if staying in their rental unit is a threat to their safety or security.

“No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator – this bill supports survivors,” said MLA Andrew Weaver, who introduced the bill on the eve of International Women’s Day. “We are building upon the good work of the BC Liberals’ in 2015, when they added the family violence provision with support from the BC NDP. This bill, drafted in consultation with the legislative drafters and stakeholders like West Coast LEAF and Ending Violence Association of BC, expands on existing provisions to insure that all victims have the same rights. It gives, for example, someone who is sexually assaulted by their roommate or neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move somewhere safe.”

West Coast LEAF says the scope of crime against tenants is difficult to gauge given these types of crimes are underreported, but the changes are needed.

“While family violence continues to account for a significant portion of all reported crimes in Canada – approximately 25% – other forms of violence remain prevalent in B.C. and disproportionately impact marginalized communities including sex workers, Indigenous women, and LGBTQIA2S+ individuals,” said Elba Bendo, director of Law Reform, West Coast LEAF. “The proposed amendments are a welcome step towards ensuring that survivors of all forms of violence are able to relocate to keep themselves and their families safe.”

Ending Violence Association of BC executive director Tracy Porteous estimates there are approximately 60,000 incidents of sexual and domestic violence in British Columbia each year.

“That equates to over 1,000 incidents per week,” said Porteous. “Most often, this violence takes place in a home and once that happens, the ‘home’ may not be a safe place any longer. The previous Act allowed for women affected by family violence to be released from the confines of their lease, so they could be free to seek safety, however that provision did not extend to survivors of sexual assault or survivors of other acts of violence. We would like to applaud the B.C. Green Party for introducing this proposed amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act today that will constitute a step forward toward making B.C. a safer place for all citizens. We think a plan that leaves no one behind is the best plan, and we thank Andrew Weaver for his leadership in this regard.”

“B.C. Green Caucus believes updating current legislation or drafting new bills to advance protections for women and other vulnerable groups is simply good governance,” said MLA Weaver, “whether it’s workplace protections like the 2017 bill preventing employers from requiring select employees to wear high-heeled shoes in the workplace, or in 2016 when I brought for the Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

—

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 5: Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019 at second reading. This bill amends several pieces of legislation in order to implement a number of the tax measures proposed in the BC Government’s budget. As one might expect from my earlier detailed remarks on the overall budget, I spoke in favour of this bill.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my remarks.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on second reading on Bill 5, 2019: Budget Measures Implementation Act.

As we know, this bill implements a number of the tax changes that were outlined in the budget. I won’t go into rather gory detail on this. Of course, I did speak quite a long time to the original budget, and we’re seeing a few of the items there reflected in the implementation act here.

There’s, obviously, a number of initiatives — major new initiatives — like the new B.C. child opportunity benefit, as well as things like expanding existing programs, like the small business venture capital tax credit. I’ll come to some others shortly. There’s a number of other minor changes that we’ve been told clarify administrative aspects of existing taxes. By and large, I and my colleagues are supportive of the overall direction of this budget, as we articulated in our budget speech.

The first one I want to address, though, is section 1 of Bill 5, 2019. This is a proposed change to the Carbon Tax Act. Now, it’s been suggested to us that the legislative change here just clarifies that the existing penalty already exists for selling natural gas without a certificate, and the legislation wasn’t clear enough previously. I must admit. A flag was raised by this section, and I look forward to a briefing on this section, in approximately 45 minutes, to ask a few questions directly about what was intended here.

Other sections in the bill are not particularly controversial, from our perspective.

I want to address the flow-through mining tax credit. This is a key piece of ongoing legislation, or now becoming permanent, that we’ve seen in budget implementation act after budget implementation act — at least every year since I’ve been here. It’s either done for one year or a couple of years, sometimes three years. We know that certainty is critical to the industry. One of the reasons why this is, essentially, being made permanent is to provide said certainty for the mining sector.

In that aspect, I’m very pleased to see this become a permanent feature of legislation, because we know — I mean, pun intended — mining, literally, is the bedrock industry of our economy. It’s the foundation of much of what we have — that and forestry. We build a foundation with mining and the house with wood from our forestry sector, so it’s critical that we continue to support these industries.

I recognize that the mining sector would have approached the government and suggested that this would be something that they’d like to see. Government has already announced this. In January, they announced that they were going to be doing this and that the tax credit would continue to flow directly from a company through to investors.

My one caveat in all of this is not that I’m opposed to the notion of flow-through tax credits to the mining sector. The problem I have, of course, with this is that we need to ensure that there’s government oversight. The flow-through program is important in terms of attracting investment, particularly into venture capital. But without proper regulatory oversight, it can be exploited.

It is very difficult for the average investor to get access to this flow-through tax credit. You have to be part of private placements. You have to, sometimes, know the right person who is issuing it. So it’s not really a tool that’s open to the average retail investor, and that’s one of the caveats and flags I have. It allows so-called in-the-know investors or investment corporations to get the flow-through tax credits. If there’s no hold on them…. And the holds vary. These can actually be dumped on the market, as soon as they become tradeable, at a discount to the market. In essence, it can be an unfair advantage that certain people in the know get when they have access to the flow-through.

So the notion and concept — very much support. I hope government ensures that there’s regulatory oversight and that we ensure that, in fact, the average retail investor is not put at disadvantage, as only a select few have access to these programs for private placements and so forth.

The child opportunity benefit, I would argue, is a flagship change in this government’s budget. It’s a flagship change that we’re very pleased to support.

Actually, what’s fascinating about this is you can view this as an important transition credit. As we start to worry more and more about gig economies, as we start to worry more and more about artificial intelligence replacing certain jobs in our society, this really is looking like a form of basic income. But it’s really a form of basic income that applies to people with children. I suspect, both in the province of British Columbia and federally, we’re going to see more and more of these kinds of initiatives take place as the gig economy continues.

This change aligns very nicely with the fundamental core values of our party, which is the notion of intergenerational equity. This is a benefit that’s being applied for people with children, who are struggling now with affordability issues. They’re going to be given a little bit of a leg up, and that is something we’re very proud to support — an initiative that we think is a very timely initiative that government has brought in.

Child poverty in British Columbia is stubbornly high. One in five children in B.C. has been growing up in poverty. Honestly, when you think about it, this is not Zambia. This is not some Southeast Asian country that’s struggling with a dictator. This is British Columbia. Twenty percent of children living in poverty in British Columbia? This is unacceptable. I think most British Columbians would argue that this is an unacceptable situation, particularly as our province is so wealthy and as we have so many opportunities before us.

We believe that supporting children in their earliest years…. Whether it be through education by ensuring that kids get the services they need when they need them in the school system, those critical developmental years; whether it be through support to ensure that parents struggling to make ends meet have access to early childhood education provisions and services; whether they have access to child benefits — these are all critical for income security for struggling families in British Columbia. So good on government for doing this.

We understand that it can’t go until 2020. I’m a little…. I understand that the critic from the official opposition was troubled that it’s going to take a year to get in, and government has argued that the revenue agency needs this lead time.

I’m not so sure, knowing the way governments work, that in fact it would be possible for the federal government to do the necessary changes in the time frame that the member opposite wants in light of the fact that they can’t even still get their payroll system done federally. I don’t know how many years they’ve been working on that. They can’t even fix the T4 slips for their own employees who are filing tax returns this year.

With the greatest respect to the member opposite, I’m going to go….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Yeah, benefit of the… And I look forward to the question at committee stage, because I agree it’s a very legitimate question. But I am quite troubled, federally, when I hear that people are getting T4 slips that don’t reflect the income they actually made.

This credit. One of the good things about this, of course, is it’s being extended to children who are 18. You know, hon. Speaker, it seems that I always miss out on these. My children have just passed the 18 threshold yet again. When you are born right at the boundary of the baby boom era, you get nothing. When you graduated from university…. We always look at the millennials, and we always look at the baby boomers, but there are those people who were born in the early 1960s, those transition people. They didn’t reap the benefits of the boomers. They didn’t have the people coming to the universities when they graduated, interviewing for jobs.

Back in the day, you had a degree? You got a job. Back in the 1980s, we didn’t have that. So yet again, had I been born a few years later — my generation; those transitional boomers, let’s call them — there would have been a benefit. But no, we don’t get a benefit.

So I feel no conflict at all in resoundingly voting for this, for the extending of this tax credit, given that my children have all aged out of this benefit.

I’m not sure that families with higher-end incomes, at the higher end, will be better off. In fact, they might even be worse off than under the existing credit. However, I think most people would reflect upon the fact that we have a society where it’s difficult to make ends meet if you’re earning below, say, $80,000 as a net income of your family. That’s really tough in places like Victoria and Vancouver to make ends meet.

If you have a couple of children living in a two-bedroom house, you’re maybe spending $1,500 to $2,000 a month of after-tax income. That’s a lot of money. Groceries aren’t going down, transportation costs. Hydro — heaven forbid, you get a hydro bill. It’s going up dramatically. I think people understand that it is important to target those families that need it, particularly families that are on the lower income stage.

We’ve got some changes to the motor fuel tax. This is an important change, the one allowing for an additional 1½ cents per litre of gas to be collected in Metro Vancouver. Of course, this is the power that the mayors wanted to fund their phase 2 transit projects. Again, they’re responsible for 20 percent of the cost, and they have a $30 million shortfall.

I suspect people in Vancouver will be concerned, but in fact, I suggest that with the transitioning to…. If you view this in the context of the ZEV mandate that’s been introduced, we’re going to find more and more people, particularly in Metro Vancouver and on Vancouver Island, switching to electric vehicles in a timely fashion. The one danger is that if you become overly reliant on fuel taxes, at some point, with the adoption of electric vehicles, you’re going to be in a shortfall down the road — which is a good problem to have, I would suggest, a good problem to find alternate sources.

Let’s continue on moving forward with this. TransLink’s estimate was that this small 1½ cents is going to cost the average vehicle $24 a year. I think most people in Metro Vancouver would be pretty okay with a much revamped and upgraded transit system. One of the things, I think, we need to look at is getting transit out into the Fraser Valley in a very efficient manner. It troubles me that TransLink stops and B.C. Transit picks up. There are transitional issues that they have to deal with, and hopefully, that will get dealt with in the months ahead.

The small business venture capital tax credit. A small change here but an important change: effective 2019, the annual tax credit limit that an individual can claim for an investment will increase from $60,000 to $120,000 a year. Again, it’s a small change but a very important change, particularly for the innovation community in British Columbia.

So I take exception with the notion from members opposite that said there’s nothing in here for business. It’s actually not true. This change, while small, is actually critical for the innovation industry: technology companies, start-up companies, companies that are looking to make investments in themselves. This is a very welcome change. It assists companies in scaling up from being stuck perpetually in the bottom echelons of corporate hierarchy. With an ability, through this tax credit, to do some reinvesting in themselves, it allows for a more efficient a scaling up of programs — again, something that we’re delighted to support.

Government’s expanding support at the commercialization stage to businesses outside of Vancouver and Victoria only. This is important. You know, it’s a good place to start. But businesses in Victoria and Vancouver, I would suggest, also need to get some benefits as well.

Speculation tax. We have a slight change in this bill too. Another exemption to the speculation tax has been added for an owner of a residential property, for a calendar year, if a residence that is part of the residential property becomes uninhabitable fewer than 60 days before the end of the immediately preceding calendar year.

You can imagine a house burning down, for example. It would be pretty rough to be nailed with a speculation tax if your house is uninhabitable, because it happened to be habitable, you had a house fire, and it’s no longer inhabitable. So I’m obviously supportive of this approach to add this commonsense exemption for people who are being burdened. That would be another…. There are other commonsense exemptions that we might talk about at some point in the future, but now is not the day for that. I’m sure in question period in the weeks ahead, I’ll hear some other examples.

There are a number of other minor changes to existing taxes. For example, section 33 “authorizes the use and disclosure of personal information for the purpose of administering and enforcing the Income Tax Act,” if collected under…. Which is why that’s important because we’re now getting a linking there between Home Owner Grant Act and the Land Tax Deferment Act and Income Tax Act and this allows for sharing. Gone are the days that you can actually buy and sell properties and try to avoid, through nefarious activity, paying the taxes that you’re supposed to pay.

The bill also prevents local governments from averaging or phasing in the additional school tax that was announced. I found that interesting that they did this, because I wasn’t aware that there were municipalities planning to do so. Clearly, if the minister is bringing it forward, there must have been. It’ll be interesting to find out more details there.

In conclusion, as promised, not a long second reading address to this. Obviously, my colleagues and I will be supporting this bill. They’re not all, again, as I say, the things we would do, but we are not government. We are but three MLAs who spend a lot of time going through the documents we have to ensure that the essence of the values that are reflected in our confidence and supply agreement are in bills like this. We’re delighted to see that they are.

We’re very pleased, as I said, with the government for funding CleanBC to the extent that they did. As well, we’re very pleased with the professional reliance reform, increasing affordability for students. I could make a cheap shot here, but I’m going to resist the temptation. One of the things I think is…. Oh, no, I don’t think it’s appropriate.

One of the things that is really, really…. I can’t emphasize enough how important it was to get the interest removed from student loans. One of the things I hope to see further is, as our province continues to benefit from a growing, clean economy, that we start to think about needs-based grants system for certain post-secondary education students. We’re one of the few — I’m not sure if there are any others that don’t — provinces that doesn’t have a needs-based grant system. To me, if I look at the progressive northern European nations and I look at some of the more progressive societies in our world, public education, post-secondary education and education in general is deemed to be a right as opposed to a privilege.

I would suggest that no student in British Columbia should have availability of resources be a barrier to them attending a post-secondary institution. As a society, it’s critical that we need to nurture our next generation. If they don’t, the ability to actually go to post-secondary institutions…. I think it’s imperative that we actually create some resources to allow them to do so, in a manner that doesn’t burden them for the rest of their life.

If you’re a student who, perhaps, comes from a poorer family, you don’t have the financial wherewithal to pay for the post-secondary education. You may be working part-time as you do it. It’s tough working part-time. You may be working in a restaurant. You may be being paid $13 an hour. You may be getting even $15, even $20. Even with tips, it’s tough to make ends meet while paying tuition fees and living full time in a province. So I think a needs-based grant system is the direction that our society here in British Columbia needs to go, something we’re committed to continuing to work towards advocating for. It is ultimately one of our most important jobs — to preserve our education system for future generations and to not make it one that only the elite can actually attend.

I will have note across that I did not take that opportunity to make any cheap shots about any comments that anyone made about the importance of the grant system.

As I said, we would have made different choices. We are very grateful to the minister and her staff for the process that was put in place here. We do commend the minister for actually listening to the Finance Committee. When I saw some of the inclusions of support for the Foundry services across B.C….I was on the Finance Committee last year. The cases being made by Foundry have been so compelling and their successes so great that I was very pleased to see that the minister listened to the report from the Finance Committee. Both two years ago and I suspect…. I didn’t read the full thing this year — but I know two years ago, we were all in on the Foundry and their presentation. It’s good to see that that process led to it.

Also, we provided a submission, like others, and we were pleased that CleanBC was funded. Obviously, one of the things that we would have liked to see more of…. We would have liked to see more investment in terms of, say, riparian habitat preservation; and more investment in terms of protecting species at risk. We recognize the problems with federal and provincial jurisdiction.

We would have liked to have seen, perhaps, more investment in terms of forestry, but again, I recognize government is starting the process to build and take a look at the forest system. Some of the low-hanging fruit that we can actually deal with and that don’t cost that much money are regulatory.

I’m quite excited to take a look at government, despite what question period said — taking a look at our tenure lot licensing system here in B.C. I can tell you that these are Crown trees on Crown land. When we give Crown trees on Crown land to multinationals that don’t actually report to the people of British Columbia but have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits, those said Crown trees on Crown land are shipped south of the border as raw logs because (a) you can avoid softwood lumber tariffs, and (b) why have a mill in Burns Lake if you could have one south of the border and mill it up there?

We really need to take a look at this. I’m not advocating for reintroducing the appurtenancy requirement, but we’ve got to do better than this tenure lot licensing system.

We could also stop spraying glyphosate on our forests. Why on earth do we think it’s okay? Well, the reason why we do it is not because the forest companies actually want to go into our pine forests and spray glyphosate. It costs money. They have a requirement to allow the stands to come back, and this is part of what they believe they need to do in order to meet requirements.

However, we would suggest that if you eliminated that use of glyphosate, you actually get a double benefit. Number 1, you get the broadleaf undergrowth — the aspens, for example, and other broadleaf undergrowth, which are critical food sources for ungulates. These are depleting in our province, partly because of predator management but also inappropriate forest management practices which have led to predators having more take-in on our ungulates — and food sources going away. Co-benefit right there.

Secondly, if you allow the aspens and the birches to start to grow up, you provide a natural fire retardancy. We’re spending money after the fact, in terms of fighting fires. We’re spending money rebuilding devastated areas. We’re spending money going into forests and trying to deal with things after the fact.

Perhaps we could take a little proactive approach and say: “You know what? A little bit of forestry policy change. Let’s stop spraying glyphosate. Let’s allow that broadleaf undergrowth. We’re not going to have a monoculture stand. We recognize it may take longer for the pines to come back and compete, etc., but we’re going to have healthy ungulate populations and we’re going to provide a natural fire redardant. And guess what. We’re going to save money in the process.” It seems to me a win-win-win there. Hopefully, the Forests Minister and budgetary measures moving forward will deal with this.

Finally, moving forward, we’ll continue to work to ensure that government continues to deliver on the promises it has made. It has offered British Columbia as putting people first — the health and wellbeing of people first — while, at the same time, ensuring that the innovation agenda that this government has adopted in partnership with our party continues to thrive.

And it is thriving. Next week is the B.C. Tech Summit in Vancouver. I hope to see members there. I can tell you the community in B.C. is excited. The innovation community feels reinvigorated, and I’m very much looking to see the fruition of this good hard work that’s been going on for the last 18 months or so play out in the next couple of years.

I thank you for your time. With that, I’ll take my place