For more than three years I’ve been pressuring government to eliminate the unfair and regressive flat rate Medical Services Premium (MSP). In fact the promise to do so was a major BC Green Party platform commitment, and we outlined how we would recoup the lost income by following the lead of Ontario. We were very pleased when government also agreed to eliminate the MSP.

But rather than specifying how the lost revenue would be replaced, the BC NDP decided to set up an expert committee to provide it with advice. And so, on November 2, 2017, the BC Government announced the establishment of an MSP Task Force.

The Task Force will be issuing its final report on March 31, 2018.

Imagine my surprise when BC Budget 2018 outlined the creation of an Employers’ Health Tax to replace the MSP. It seemed very odd to me that government was making such an announcement prior to the Task Force producing their report.

Exploring this was the subject of my exchange in Question Period with the Minister of Finance today. Below I reproduce the video and text this discussion. I hope that government will reflect upon their decision and be open to revisiting it once the Task Force final report is made available.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Let’s be clear: government misled British Columbians on the B.C. Hydro rate. There’s no two ways of saying it. I find it remarkable that they’re trying to claim otherwise.

Government established an MSP Task Force in November to advise it on how best to eliminate the MSP premium and make up the revenue. The task force comprised experts in both economics and public policy. The team analyzed hundreds of submissions from individuals and stakeholders. They consulted with labour and business groups. They undertook an in-depth tax policy analysis. Their report advising on how best to eliminate MSP premiums isn’t due until the end of March. Rather than waiting for the report, government eliminated MSP premiums and instituted an employers health tax.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Government established the task force. Government selected the experts, the mandate and the reporting timeline. Why would government forge ahead on this tax change without waiting for the task force to submit their recommendations?

Answer

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. As the member knows, part of my mandate as Finance Minister is to look at how we can ensure a more fair tax system. The outstanding piece in British Columbia, on an issue of a fair tax system in particular, was the MSP, the fact that MSP was not eliminated. It was the most regressive tax, and it needed to be addressed.

It became clear that this was something that we could accomplish in the budget. We looked at the interim report that came from the MSP panel. We, in fact, agreed with a couple of the pieces that they brought forward, which was to eliminate the premiums all at once, not to do a further phase out, as we had done with the first 50 percent, and to give some advanced notice. Again, that’s why we’ve given a year.

I look forward to their final report. We took into account their interim report. And I’m very proud that we are going to save families and individuals in this province by getting rid of MSP once and for all.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. She’ll get no argument from us about MSP being a regressive form of taxation.

Since government announced the employers health tax, we’ve been hearing concerns from businesses, school boards and local governments regarding its potential negative impacts. We’re hearing concerns about everything, from impact on businesses’ bottom line to the ability of the public service to provide the services they are required to provide.

The MSP Task Force was going to issue a final report in just a few weeks, advising government on the best path to eliminating premiums. When the Minister of Finance established the task force, she said this: “Engaging a panel of respected experts in economics, law and public policy, we will ensure the path we take is fiscally responsible, fair and evidence-based.”

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. In light of the desire to ensure that public policy is informed by evidence, did government ask the task force to expedite their work in order to provide final recommendations before government made a decision on establishing the employer health tax?

Answer

Hon. C. James: We received an interim report from the committee. We made the decision, as government, to move ahead on getting rid of a regressive tax. We felt that was important. We were able to do it in this budget, and we thought this was the right time. We ensured that we gave a year’s notice so that we would be able to work through the challenges.

The member has raised some of the issues that we are hearing and discussing. We are going to continue those discussions to ensure we can cover those bases, but we will be eliminating MSP by 2020. People are saving money — $1.3 billion this year — by the reduction of MSP by 50 percent, and we look forward, as I said, to savings for families and individuals in this province, making life more affordable for the people of B.C.

Yesterday in the BC Legislature we debated Bill 2: Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill amends 21 other pieces of legislation in order to implement a number of the tax measures proposed in the BC Government’s budget.

As you will see in the text and video of my second reading speech, I was generally supportive of the measures included in this bill. Nevertheless, I was critical (for reasons that I expand upon in detail in my speech) of the government not exempting zero-emission vehicles from the increase in PST that will now be applied to automobiles over $125,000.

I was also critical of government not closing the bare trust loophole that I’ve been pointing out for more than four years now is being used to avoid paying property transfer tax. In my speech I provide details as to how someone can simply avoid paying the proposed increase in property transfer tax on homes sold for over $3 million.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech.

Text Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak, join debates here at second reading discussion of Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018. As we’ve heard from members opposite and government, this bill is being brought forward to enact some of the measures that government is proposing to do.

I’ve heard a lot in the debate so far, discussions about the budget in general. We must recall that in fact, this bill is only dealing with a few aspects of what is actually contained in the budget. The speculation tax, which we’ll clearly be debating at some point, is not contained in the budget implementation act, but something that is contained that I haven’t heard a lot about is changes to the school tax, which we’ll discuss in a second.

Before I start, I think I would like to give notice to members opposite and to government that a press release was just issued by BCUC announcing that, in fact, B.C. Hydro rates will go up 3 percent this year, despite what the government claimed: that it was going to freeze B.C. Hydro rates. Why that’s important is that it makes us wonder to what extent this budget will be affected, in light of the debt that is being put on to British Columbians, despite the fact that we were told that rates were not going on.

The member for Surrey-Whalley and I did probe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on this topic, and we were assured that rates were not going to go up. In fact, they are going up. So it does not bode well for instilling confidence into the full suite of budget measure implementations that are being put forward.

The most notable changes in the act that we’re seeing here today are changes to the Income Tax Act, which I’ll come to — important changes with respect to reporting — and changes to the Land Tax Deferment Act and the Home Owner Grant Act. Again, much to do with reporting, to ensure that characters out there are not getting away with financial shenanigans in terms of  claiming things like homeowner grants or avoiding taxes that they should otherwise pay.

There are changes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act, which are allowing Victoria regional transit to get an extra 2 cents per litre in gasoline. What’s remarkable about this is that gas taxes like that are very good for raising revenue for public transportation. The issue, of course, in Victoria is that we are the capital of the electric vehicle. I suspect that the government has over budgeted its expected revenues from this as the electrification of Victoria’s vehicular sector continues to grow.

Changes to property transfer tax are an important component of the Budget Measures Implementation Act — in particular, the additional levy being applied to properties over $3 million. I’ll come to that in a second, because again, as with many of these things, there needs to be careful analysis of the details. Of course, the Provincial Sales Tax Act to levy a surcharge on vehicles over $125,000 — I will come to that again in some detail.

I’ll start by recognizing what I could not find embedded within the budget implementation act itself, but it was mentioned directly by the Finance Minister in her opening remarks. It’s a very important change that’s being implemented for cruise ships in British Columbia. We know right now that cruise ships in British Columbia are at an unfair competitive disadvantage with cruise ships that come to Seattle. The reason why is that cruise ships in British Columbia pay a carbon tax when they use marine gas. Now, marine gas is more frequently used today than the traditional bunker fuels of yesteryear, which don’t have the carbon tax applied. The reason why they’re not applied is, if you’re an international carrier and you fly from one jurisdiction to another, international reporting regulations do not require you to actually count those emissions to your jurisdiction.

So this may not seem like a big change, but it is an incredibly important change. The cruise ships, the modern cruise ships, the cleaner cruise ships using marine gas are no longer at a disadvantage if they fill up in Victoria or British Columbia or Prince Rupert. So now they can actually make, in their decisions as to where to go, a financial windfall by not being penalized by coming to B.C. Thank you to the minister, and thank you to the Finance Committee. We recommended discussions about this — and the presentation that was made to us by steamship operators. This was an important addition. It won’t get the attention I think it deserves, but it certainly will make a big deal in terms of the cruise ship industry.

Coming to the Income Tax Act. What’s happening in that, which I think, generally, we can support — and this is embedded within sections 14 to 34 of the act — are important changes that parallel that which was done federally with respect to clamping down on anti-avoidance. That is, there are new definitions and new rules that are being put in place to ensure that the misuse or abuse of provisions in other acts, which the income tax relies upon, will be subject to the same rules as embedded here.

A lot of incidental changes here. A lot of this is actually not, per se, a fundamental part of the government’s budget but rather important work that needed to be done by the civil service — legislative additions — in order to mirror or match legislations that have clearly been brought in place federally.

Coming to the Land Tax Deferment Act, which is section 88, we notice in here that it provides for information-sharing and use of information provided under the Income Tax Act, and back and forth. In particular, there are changes to the Home Owner Grant Act to provide for the same information-sharing. Why this is important is a couple of things. It’s a welcome change, in my opinion. It’s a welcome change, because it actually, again, has significant implications for tackling tax avoidance through enabling information-sharing across multiple jurisdictions.

For example, there could be people that are claiming that a home is their principal residence and claiming the home owner grant for the purposes of either not paying — getting a grant — or deferring taxes, if they’re a senior, and they wish to defer taxes against the property until such time as they sell, as that property is sold. We now are requiring information be determined for tax purposes, whether they’re a resident and, in fact, if they’re paying income taxes here and, frankly, if they’re living here in British Columbia.

Coming to the Motor Fuel Tax Act — again, sections 42 to 50 of the bill…. It’s a large bill, more than 40 pages of very dense language and multiple sections that cross-reference each other — a very complex bill. It’s a component that was asked for by the region where I live, here in the capital region, to allow additional revenue sources for the regional transit authority. I’m sure that they’ll be pleased, and this becomes effective April 1, 2018, when we get a two-cent per litre addition here in Victoria, up from 3½ cents to 5.5 cents — again, for regional transit initiatives. My only hope is that we ensure that such initiatives actually start to represent the future and get us down towards bringing our communities in the West Shore and on the Saanich Peninsula closer together with rapid forms of transportation.

The Property Transfer Tax Act. There are some very important changes here. Some that are simple, just information-exchanging. For example, currently, the anti-avoidance rule that is being fixed here, only applies to the foreign buyers tax. So now what’s happening is the definition and the language that was only applied to the foreign buyers tax, which is being increased to 20 percent, is now broader. It’s now applying throughout the act to ensure that, avoidance is being captured.

There is also the important change, which is a revenue-generator here, which is additional levees on the property transfer tax for homes that exceed $3 million. Presently it’s $2 million above $200,000 to $3 million. Now it’s going to be an additional three percent, to take it to five percent of the value of the home above $3 million.

Again, one of the things I have a problem with is that property transfer tax is a very regressive form of taxation. In general, it’s essentially penalizing home ownership and moving up and down as you age. As your family grows, you typically get larger houses, and as the family shrinks or you retire, they typically get smaller. We’re taxing all the way along the lines there. Again, this was being used….

The idea here, of course, is to put a clamp on upper-end homes. But, as with all of the government’s measures to deal with housing, I, frankly, believe that they’ve missed the boat. What I mean by that is that it appears to me that government is using our housing crisis rather than as a source of revenue to build supply, affordable housing, which is part of their plan…. Why that’s problematic and why I believe that to be the case is if you look in the budget, budget revenues are expected to either remain constant or actually grow from things like property tax transfer tax, a speculation tax, foreign buyers tax.

If these tools were actually being designed to clamp down on the speculative market, you would expect, for example, a speculation tax to go to zero. But it doesn’t. It grows and then stays flat. This is troubling to me. I think we’re missing the boat as to what the issue is.

The issue, we know, is offshore capital flowing into B.C. in a highly unregulated manner, leading to speculation. And rather than dealing with the problem, we’re in a crisis. Critical times deserve decisive measures, not tepid responses like we see here. So the property transfer tax, five percent above $3 million. Again, why $3 million? Why not $2.2 million? Why $5 million? It seems to me somewhat arbitrary and a means, a way, to actually grabbing cash.

In some sense, you could view it almost along the lines of a form of an inheritance tax. People, as they get older and sell their homes for their children, are going to have a…. It’s typically if you’re living in Point Grey and you’re either or foreign buyer, you’re a multi-millionaire, or you’ve lived there all your life and you’re going to sell your home and move out, as some people have spoken to me about. This is viewed as a form of an inheritance tax.

This change takes effect February 21, which was pretty rapid after the budget, so it’s in place now. A tax may have the effect of exerting some downward pressure, but it’s actually not dealing with the problem as I articulated it. It’s not dealing with the issue at hand, the issue being offshore money flowing into our market.

We know about the laundering issue. We know about the link to the drugs and the money coming in from the drug trade and the fentanyl crisis into the real estate market. We’ve had excellent investigative reporting in that regard, and the government’s measures are not actually targeting that. They’re targeting everyday homeowners as well as other people.

Some of the members opposite have raised the issue of speculation tax. Now, as we’ve discussed the budget in general, and I understand and recognize that, the actual measures of implementation here about the speculation tax are not embodied and embedded in Bill 2. Nevertheless, I think it’s important to put on record that I share some of the concerns that opposition members have raised on the issue of a speculation tax.

To me, it’s actually not a speculation tax. It’s a form of a vacancy tax, a provincial vacancy tax. But the concern I have, and the concern that has been expressed to me, is multifold. I don’t think government has thought this through. I don’t think government has thought what problem they’re trying to solve.

They’re looking at this issue of affordability, whether it be through — what I just discussed — the property transfer tax changes or the speculation tax, and they’re viewing this as a means and way of grabbing revenue in order to build affordable housing or build campus housing. Now, I have no problem grabbing revenue if you have an outcome from somewhere, but we’re not dealing with the problem.

Coming to the speculation tax, as mentioned multiple times by members opposite, there are multiple problems with this. Many people, for example, have a home on a ski hill, which may be part of a rental pool. Let’s suppose I have a condo at Sun Peaks that I actually use a couple of weeks a year — I don’t, but if I did — but it’s in a rental pool. Perhaps it’s zoned tourist commercial, which means you can’t actually rent it for more than six months because of the individual zoning. Perhaps it’s in a pool. Is that exempted or not? We don’t know.

There are people who plan to retire out to B.C. They may have bought a condo here to protect themselves from the market, maybe a couple of years prior to them retiring. That condo may be vacant. It may be vacant for a short term. Should they be taxed? Why is it that the government’s targeting fellow Canadians? Why is it not recognizing that the problem is not people from Prince Edward Island or Saskatchewan? The problem is offshore money, bypassing due process in normal channels, flowing into our real estate sector.

Again, I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments raised opposite on this, even though specifically, right now, we’ll have to wait until we see legislation emerging, because it’s not actually in Bill 2.

Coming, again, to some of the requirements. Some might think this is onerous — the level of information that this bill is actually asking be done, be provided, as part of the property transfer tax act changes. They’re things like the date of birth of the buyer, the buyer’s social insurance number or individual tax number, the buyer’s citizenship and residency status, the foreign country of citizenship if they’re not a Canadian or permanent resident. Clearly, these are new additional pieces of information that government is grabbing. We also know now that there’s more sharing ability between income tax, property tax acts, etc., to allow cross-checking and target those avoiders.

Similarly for corporations, we’re now requiring more information in the transfer of properties. We could argue about the issues of privacy. What has to be front and centre, of course, in all of this, is that we’re careful with the data that we’re collecting. I understand and support government’s desire to crack down on people who are cheating the system. However, we also have to recognize that we are collecting a lot of very personal data on issues, and we have to be very careful how we do that.

We know that one of the biggest ways that we’re seeing our property escalate in value artificially is through offshore companies buying British Columbia real estate. I’m not sure whether or not partnerships are covered, because that is one of the ways that people are avoiding the foreign buyers tax. I’ll ask that when we get to committee stage.

For corporations, they now must return…. I guess partnerships should be included in that. They have to give information on the total number of directors; the number of directors who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents; and each of these directors, now, has to provide their citizen status or permanent resident status information, date of birth, social insurance number and, for people who are not Canadian, similar information from where they’re from.

I just got some notes given to me here — notes about the B.C. Hydro rate freeze that didn’t happen. We’ve just issued a press release, but I reserve that for other conversations and not here on Bill 2 right now.

One of the things I do like, of course, is also that the government is targeting the beneficial owners of bare trusts. Now, as we all know, this is another means that people have used to avoid, essentially, property transfer tax, at its very fundamental level. Also, it’s a way of hiding actual ownership. If property is purchased in a trust, the trust is owned by a corporation or an individual, and when you dispense of a property, rather than selling the property, you sell ownership of the trust. So there’s no transfer of title. In British Columbia, we still tax transfer of title instead of transfer of beneficial ownership. That bare trust loophole I raised three or four years ago here in the legislature, still, government hasn’t closed it.

I don’t understand why they haven’t closed it. They’re collecting more information here. When I stood opposite, the now Attorney General railed on the government of the day — day after day — on the need to actually clamp down on the ability of people to hide and not pay property transfer tax. Yet, here, we have an opportunity to close that loophole, and what does government do? It collects more data.

I assume we’re going to get a report from this at some point down the road too. Or we’re going to send it to a committee to study it and make a decision. Government didn’t need to do that. Government could have made that decision now, which puts us, of course, in a predicament.

Obviously, we want to move forward. But obviously, we must think of the collective when we determine whether we support or don’t support a budget or its implementation act. This could have and should have been fixed now. Obviously, I support the collection of additional data — the social insurance numbers of beneficial owners, etc. — for the purpose of clamping down. But we’re not actually doing anything. We’re not actually clamping down.

Still, if I’m a wealthy individual and I want to buy a property here and I want to not pay any property transfer tax, especially if I want to buy an expensive property, I would be a mug if I were to buy an expensive property in anything other than in bare trust. Nobody in British Columbia is going to pay that 5 percent tax if they’re actually smart.

Because what they’ll do is they’ll buy properties in a trust, and everybody will be selling beneficial ownership of the trust. Nobody will be paying property transfer tax, not even the 5 percent. They’ll be paying zero percent. The reason why they’ll be paying zero percent is because there’s no change of title when you change ownership of the actual bare trust.

Again, government could have closed this. They’re going to study it. I don’t understand it. I frankly don’t think British Columbians understand it. Frankly, I don’t think anybody who wants to game our system is going to actually go and…. Anyone who want to game it has got another loophole to game it in.

The best way to do it is to work a deal with someone where you’re buying a house for, oh…. Here’s the way to gain it right now, here and now. You have a house. You know it’s below market, and it would sell. But you want to sell it for a higher amount. So you sell it to buddy over here for $2.9 million.

But it may have been registered on title, and you want to change it into a trust. Okay. You’re changing the title there. You’re putting the trust on title. You paid $2.9 million for the property, put it into a trust. But you really want to sell it to this guy over here.

So what do you do? You turn around and sell the shares in your trust for $5 million, the true value of that house, to this guy over here. So this guy has bought a $5 million home and paid only the property transfer tax on the first $2.9 million. There are so many loopholes here that this should have been closed.

Frankly, it’s frustrating to sit down here and to have listened for four years to the now Attorney General, listened for four years to member after member after member hurl abuse at government for not closing this loophole. It’s also a bit ironic to listen to opposition members suddenly claim the government is not dealing with the problem properly, but that’s another story.

But the government had the opportunity, and they failed. They failed here. They’re collecting more data. Good for them. But frankly, we need action, not more reports, committees or subcommittees.

When we come forward, one of the other good changes is that now government may say, “Okay, in Bill 2, we’re now allowing government access at no charge to MLS information,” because in MLS, there might be more information that might give more information on fair market value.

But that way of gaming the system that I just outlined won’t be reflected here because…. “Let me list the property for $2.9 million on MLS. I can list it on MLS and sell the property right away on MLS. It’s gone through MLS — information there. I buy it in a trust, and I sell my shares in the trust for $5 million. Okay, I’ll wait six months. I’ll call it my principal residence, and I’ll pay no capital gains tax either.” It’s just that the system is messed up, and government has not dealt with that.

There are penalties, though. The government is now allowing the administrator to actually put penalties in place that are equivalent to 100 percent of the tax avoided if they catch a means and ways of avoiding it. But again, it has to be pretty blatant when there are clear legal loopholes right now that the government is not closing that will allow people to avoid (a) paying any property transfer tax or (b) paying the 5 percent.

To the changes to the provincial sales tax, again, the government missed an opportunity here. I sometimes wonder if the left hand is talking to the right when decisions are made in government in general. We have government recognizing that there are luxury cars — for example, a car worth over $125,000 — are really something that, perhaps, you might want to put a little bit of a tax on. Because there are costs associated with this, and people who can afford that…. You might think, if you can afford a Rolls-Royce, you can afford a little more sales tax than, perhaps, if you have a small, secondhand beater. Okay. I get that argument.

So you make changes to the Provincial Sales Tax Act to allow a 10 percent to 15 percent increase, of PST applied to vehicles worth $125,000 to $150,000, and for vehicles worth over $150,000, the tax increases from 10 percent to 20 percent.

We’re going: “What’s the problem with this?” It may sound okay. This is good. We’re taxing the rich. We’re Robin Hooding the system — taxing the rich and giving the poor, taxing the Maserati owners and giving it to the people who can’t afford a car. Okay. I get that. But I don’t think government actually understands that there are also segments of our economy where we rely upon people — the early adopters — to actually pay more for certain things to allow us to actually get into the market.

Let me give an example. The first people who bought cell phones paid a lot for their cell phones — the big, big cell phones. They paid a lot, and those so-called early adopters are the reason why we are able to buy cell phones so cheaply, because they paid the R-and-D costs of the companies, some of which went bankrupt, that created the technology that we use today.

The first people who bought laptops paid a fortune. The first people who bought LED-screen TVs…. Can you imagine the first people who were spending thousands of dollars for a flat screen TV? They were paying the R-and-D, research and development, costs that allowed the price to come down so much that they give them away in cornflakes boxes now, pretty much.

But what the government has failed to see here is that there are some new types of vehicular transport — hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and some high-end electric vehicles — that are actually new technologies, and there are extremely high R-and-D costs associated with them.

What we’re doing is, rather than government giving a handout to these companies to keep them going, we’re letting those who can afford it pay the R-and-D costs for these companies. It’s pretty clear to me that there should be an exemption here, and that exemption should be for cars that are zero-emitting vehicles, whether they be fuel cell or electric cars.

Some Teslas are in this price range. Tesla is now only able to deliver a sedan because all of those people were able to invest in the R and D of the earlier models — the Model X and the Model S. But now they can develop the sedan.

What about hydrogen fuel cell? That may be a technological pathway. I doubt it, but it may be. We shouldn’t be taxing those early adopters and putting in barriers that way. I hope the government is open to an amendment which excludes zero-emission vehicles in this regard.

Coming down to the municipal and regional district tax and the PST, we now have legislation happening here that’s allowing the accommodation platforms, like Airbnb and, say, VRBO, vacation rental by owner. We’re allowing these organizations and municipalities, as well, to actually start to collect municipal and regional district taxes and PSTs and submit them. This is enabling legislation. It doesn’t mean that if I’m renting my house on Craigslist for a week that I’m going to do it, but it would allow me to do it if I so chose to do so.

Coming to the school tax, now we have a two-tier system, a two-tier additional school tax on high-end properties. One threshold is $3 million, and the second threshold is $4 million — again, somewhat arbitrary numbers. I guess it applies to a lot of people who live on the waterfront here on Vancouver Island or in Shaughnessy or Point Grey. I’m sure the member from Vancouver-Quilchena will have concerned citizens in his riding.

Again, we have two new property school tax rates, and what’s happening now, of course, is there’s going to be an addition of a 0.2 percent additional school tax on the residential portion assessed between $3 million and $4 million and a 0.4 percent tax on the residential portion assessed over $4 million.

This exempts things like purpose-built rental housing, etc. Now, again, I can see the problem, and I can see some of the concerns. Increasing designated….

I won’t be much longer, hon. Speaker. Although I am the designated speaker on Budget Implementation Act, Bill 2, I do see the green light coming.

For many homeowners, taxes can be deferred, as we know. So if you’re a senior citizen, you don’t actually have to pay your property tax. You might want to defer it. But there are people who want to ensure that they’re not leaving debt in that way so there is some discomfort with this. I don’t know that it’s insurmountable, but there is some discomfort within senior groups, senior citizens, about what this means.

I don’t know about the unintended consequences. Let me give a specific example, which I hope government reflects upon. I know a specific case of an individual with special needs who lived with his parents in a home. Now, that home probably could have been worth pretty close to this amount of money. When the parents tragically were deceased, the individual stayed in the home. Now the individual would be, in this case, subject to taxation.

But that individual may not be a senior. That individual, in the case I’m talking about, was not a senior. It was a 40-something-year-old gentleman. That 40-something-year-old gentleman, who’s barely making ends meet, would now be subject to a punitive, additional tax. I hope government thinks about, in fact, exempting people who perhaps have special needs or special circumstances.

Nobody’s going to stand up here and call government out for increasing the tobacco tax — minor increases. I can’t believe that people still are willing to spend 12 bucks for a pack of cigarettes, but they do, and they’re going to pay more clearly, as this goes forward. What we didn’t see, of course, is any legislation yet on what kind of tax revenue we would expect from cannabis as it comes forward. Hopefully, government will be letting us know that as we move forward.

With that, I’ll say that by and large, obviously, I will support at second reading the Budget Implementation Act. I won’t speak for my colleagues, but we have had a brief discussion, and I’m pretty sure that they’re supportive as well. Well, I know they are, in fact.

But we’re not entirely happy with the implementation act. We don’t see the details on the speculation tax. We should have seen those details. The property transfer tax issue, of course, has been left out in terms of proper enforcement, of actually ensuring that people pay it. That’s a mistake. Government should have fixed that. The issue of electric and non-emitting vehicles over $125,000 — that’s a punitive tax of early adopters. It shouldn’t be there. Hopefully, government will reflect upon this as we move forward.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to the remaining debate

Video of Speech

In November of last year, the BC Government released a very misleading press release entitled Province delivers on commitment to freeze BC Hydro rates. The release stated:

The British Columbia government is delivering on its promise to freeze BC Hydro rates, putting an end to the years of spiralling electricity costs that have made life less affordable for B.C. homeowners and renters, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Michelle Mungall announced today.

You would be forgiven if you thought that this announcement meant that BC Hydro rates were not going to go up this year. You were probably very upset if Fortis was your electricity provided. But it turned out that all the BC NDP had done was instruct BC Hydro to ask the independent British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) to consider overturning its already approved 3% rate increase for 2018.

As I noted back in the fall, it was entirely uncertain whether the BCUC would agree to do this given the autonomy of the organization, the very legitimate concerns about the fiscal sustainability of BC Hydro, the ability for intervenors to provide further information and so forth. I suggested that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources owed British Columbians a formal correction to the press release. She refused.

Well as expected, today the British Columbia Utilities Commission rejected BC Hydro’s request for a rate freeze.

The BC NDP responded with a hastily issued press release expressing disappointment. They further noted (with scant details) that:

“BC Hydro residential customers who find themselves in an emergency – such as loss of employment, unanticipated medical expenses or pending eviction for example – will be eligible for a grant toward their outstanding BC Hydro bill. The grant is up to $600 and does not need to be repaid.”

I reproduce our media release below.

Media Release

Weaver responds to BCUC hydro rate freeze rejection
For immediate release
March 1, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, responded to the BCUC decision to reject the government’s proposed rate freeze, as well as the government’s proposal to provide a lifeline rate program to low-income British Columbians.

“I am glad that the government is respecting BCUC’s independence,” said Weaver.

“If governments had always done this, British Columbians would not be facing the travesty of the Site C boondoggle. BCUC makes its decisions based on evidence and in what is the best interests of ratepayers. Respect for proper process is essential for public trust in government and for the integrity of our democracy.

“While it’s encouraging to see the government adopting a more evidence-based, progressive approach to support British Columbians facing income insecurity, this demonstrates the need to move past ad-hoc, boutique supports and seriously consider a basic income. As the world and our province faces challenges such as automation and the gig economy, we must proactively respond with innovative ideas. Basic income is widely lauded by economists and will help ensure that nobody falls so far behind that they can’t pick themselves back up again. When British Columbians are truly income secure, they will be able to take risks such as starting small businesses, which will help build a truly thriving, 21st century economy.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

This week we rose each day during Question Period to ask the government about what, if anything, it was doing to protect wild salmon along the coast of British Columbia. Midweek I provided an update following the question I asked.

Today we concluded our line of questioning by calling on the government to establish a secretariat responsible for wild salmon.

Below I reproduce our accompanying news release.

Media Release

B.C. Green caucus calls on province to establish secretariat responsible for wild salmon
For immediate release
March 1, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – The B.C. Green caucus is calling on the government to immediately establish a secretariat responsible for wild salmon. The caucus’ call comes after a week of questioning the government over its plans to protect wild salmon.

“Wild salmon are a foundational B.C. species of vital importance to our economy and to our communities,” said Adam Olsen, spokesperson for natural resources and agriculture. “The MLAs that now sit on the government side of the house are well aware of the risks facing this species, having often drawn attention to this issue when in opposition. It is time to move beyond words and take action. There is absolutely no reason to delay taking action to help restore B.C.’s wild salmon stocks to levels that support a healthy environment and a thriving wild salmon fishery.”

Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, added that the Premier’s response today strengthens the case for a secretariat: “Even the Premier acknowledges that the questions posed to his government this week demonstrate serious inter-jurisdictional and cross-ministerial challenges. As Adam argued today, secretariats have been created to respond to issues like climate change and conflict of interest. A dedicated, empowered secretariat would ensure this issue of importance to so many British Columbians, and especially coastal First Nations, is given the prioritization it deserves.”

To be effective, the secretariat responsible for wild salmon would need to granted adequate funding and authority. A wild salmon secretariat could streamline and coordinate all the work being done and stand as a united representative in negotiations with DFO.

“At present, responsibility for steelhead and wild salmon is split among six government ministries in addition to the federal Department of Fisheries,” added Sonia Furstenau, spokesperson for environment. “It has become clear that this confusing, inefficient system is not making headway on the policy changes that are needed to promote healthy levels of wild salmon stocks. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in calling for this much-needed office.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Today in the BC Legislature the Premier, Leader of the Official Opposition and I paid tribute to former NDP Premier Dave Barrett who passed away on February 2, 2018.

Below I attach the video and text of my tribute.

Video of Tribute

Text of Tribute

A. Weaver: I rise to pay tribute on behalf of the B.C. Green caucus to a great British Columbian, Dave Barrett, who passed away on February 2 of this year. I also wish to extend my sincere condolences to his family gathered in the gallery today.

Dave Barrett dedicated much of his life to the service of British Columbians. He did so with passion. He did so with commitment. He did so with integrity, and he did so both here in the B.C. Legislature as well as in the Houses of Parliament in Ottawa.

Dave Barrett, without a doubt, was one of Canada’s great Premiers. During his time as Premier from 1972 to 1975, his government passed a remarkable 367 bills, averaging one every three days. Much of his legacy has stood the test of time. His government created ICBC, launched PharmaCare and passed the human rights code, to name but a few of his impressive and lasting achievements.

In 1973, British Columbia was faced with sprawling urban development that threatened to swallow up precious agricultural land, including some of the best farmland in Canada. It was a challenge with opponents down every avenue, and one that a timid political leader would likely have avoided. Premier Dave Barrett and his government rose to the challenge through principled and focused leadership.

They preserved Cypress Bowl — what he described as his greatest legacy — and they protected vast swaths of land from developing by creating the agricultural land reserve, ensuring that future generations would have access to quality farmland and locally grown food. It was an act that angered many in the development community, but it was a bold and important act that was grounded in the principle of intergenerational equity.

A great orator. A gregarious individual with a wicked sense of humour. A man of integrity and principles, and a man of the people. These are but a few of the traits for which he will be remembered.

As a junior high school student in the mid-1970s, Dave Barrett’s political leadership inspired me. His lasting legacy continues to do just that each and every day in the Legislature.

As we say goodbye to Premier Barrett, we should collectively reflect upon his great accomplishments, for it is with leadership like his that we can continue a build a province that is forward-looking, innovative and compassionate.

Thank you, Dave Barrett, for all that you did. You will be missed but never forgotten.