Affordability

On Thursday I rose to speak at second reading in support of Bill 3 -2015 Building Act. This is a bill that has been in the works for quite some time. As Minister Richard Coleman (Liberal – Fort Langley-Aldergrove) and Mike Farnworth (NDP – Port Coquitlam), two of the longest serving MLAs in the legislature, noted, the contents within the bill have been discussed and debated since the 1990s.

This bill has three main purposes:

1. To streamline building requirements and ensure that they are the same throughout BC by establishing the province as the sole authority to create building requirements;
2. To establish mandatory qualifications for local building officials in order to improve the interpretation, application and enforcement of the BC Building Code;
3. To expand the province’s ability to review innovative building proposals.

Below is the text of my contribution to the debate.

My contribution to the debate at second reading

I must say, I do agree with the member for Nanaimo about the importance of climate and actually having that reflected in building codes. There have been steps made in the province of British Columbia, without any doubt, in that area. I assume and hope that there will be in the future.

The minister points out that the building code has been greening for the past seven years. I agree that there have been advances in that area. My concern, of course, is whether or not this bill will actually limit the innovation that has occurred and will continue to occur at the municipal level.

There’s a lot of good in this bill. I’ve been in contact with municipalities in the area that I serve, and they’re generally supportive of this bill. There’s strength within the streamlining of the building requirements across the province, particularly in a region like the capital regional district, with our multitude of municipalities and subsequent building codes. There does need to be standardization, and that has certainly been conveyed to me.

The intent, of course, is to reduce costs and improve efficiency, productivity and innovation in the construction sector. It’s hard to argue against attempts to reduce bureaucracy, red tape and costs in the construction sector. Of course, builders and construction associations have been lobbying for a streamlined Building Act for many, many years. As a stakeholder in the building business…. Of course, listening to an important stakeholder is of great importance.

Some of the local governments that we’ve looked into, particularly the ones that I represent, have expressed concerns not so much about what they’ve read in the bill, but the devil is within the details, in some sense. They’re not sure to what extent, at this stage, it will actually affect them or affect their ability to take local concerns into their building practices.

There are some concerns about streamlining. But generally, streamlining the building requirements, especially qualifications for building officials, would certainly help reduce confusion and improve the efficiency for builders.

Some of the concerns and questions that have been expressed to me lie in these finer details. In particular, there have been questions with respect to whether or not this bill actually provides a minimum standard or a maximum standard in some cases, whether it will limit innovation or allow for innovation. Again, this is where the devil is in the details. We’ll hear more about that as we go into committee stage.

One specific and very local example that was brought to my attention — and I think this is shared not only in the region of Oak Bay but across British Columbia — was the issue with respect to local requirements for fire regulations, fire sprinkler regulations. There are areas that are not well served by access for fire trucks, access for fire reduction. These areas do have and are required within local areas to have various sprinkler regulations. We only have to look at what happened on Mount Washington just this past week for some of the ramifications of perhaps not having more aggressive fire regulations in a community that is not well served, that does not have good access to fire services.

There’s also some question and concern about the extent to which this bill will retroactively remove some of the unique bylaws within the municipalities. I look forward to exploring that further. Again, it’s important — as the member for Nanaimo, the member for Port Coquitlam and others have expressed — to actually ensure this bill facilitates innovation rather than limits innovation. I’m sure, again, in committee stage we’ll see more of that.

Finally, the big question municipalities are asking is: who’s going to pay the cost? Is the government going to be repaid? Or is this, in some sense, going to be downloading of costs onto municipalities? Or will it be alleviating municipalities?

There is a very real concern out there that while builders will be saving money, the question is: what about local governments? Will they be picking up the bills, or will they actually be reducing their costs as well?

The rationale for this, of course, is that there are far too many pressing issues, as we try to deal with our infrastructure debt in municipalities across British Columbia that has grown over decades of neglect and is now having to be dealt with through year-after-year increases in municipal housing taxes, property taxes. There is simply no more room for growth in these areas to cover downloading of costs onto municipalities.

Once again, overall, I’m very pleased to support this bill at this stage, and I will look forward to seeing more information in the details as we move to committee stage.

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

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.

In an earlier post I noted that on January 5th I sent a letter to Minister Anton seeking clarification as to whether or not legislation was going to be introduced to regulate the debt settlement industry. Similar legislation exists in other provinces (e.g. Ontario and Nova Scotia as well as in a number of US States).

On February 11 I received a very positive response from the Attorney General. To quote from the letter:

“Although I am unable to provide specific details regarding the development or timing of legislation at this time, I can assure you that government is committed to enhancing consumer protections against deceptive practices. To this end, ministry staff continue to work through policy issues that are necessary to regulate debt settlement agencies“

I look forward to the timely introduction of legislation to regulate the debt settlement industry.

Today in the legislature I offered a new vision for British Columbia in my response to the Speech from the Throne.

It is clear from the Throne Speech and the NDP’s amendment, that we are lacking leadership and vision in the legislature. We have a government completely out of ideas and an Official Opposition that is more focused on pointing out the government’s failures than offering viable solutions.

In my speech, I laid out my vision for a diversified, sustainable, 21st century economy, in contrast to the Liberal government’s preoccupation with the elusive LNG industry. In offering my vision, I highlighted the importance of prioritizing affordability, health care, education and environmental regulation.

I presented evidence-based options to improve MSP, advance the cleantech and other sectors, bolster environmental regulation, and help B.C. teachers. I offered my ideas as a first step towards solving a large number of the province’s growing challenges.

In my view it is disrespectful to deliver a Speech from the Throne to British Columbians completely void of ideas when so many people are struggling to get by and when so many solutions exist. At the same time, opposition has to be more than standing on the sidelines and lobbing dirt at the government. I hope the ideas that I put forward can assist us move towards developing lasting solutions to the problems and challenges facing British Columbians.

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

Preamble

Honourable speaker, last week as I sat through the throne speech it became apparent to me that this government is now without a vision, at a loss for new ideas and completely struggling for a new direction. Their promise of wealth and prosperity for one and all through an LNG message of hope wrapped in hyperbole has not materialized.

Honourable speaker, last year at this time, during the speech from the throne to open the 2^nd session of this parliament, the government mentioned LNG ten times. LNG was mentioned only eight times in last fall’s throne speech and now, at the opening of the 4^th session, we only find passing reference to LNG five times.

But here’s what’s different Honourable Speaker. In those two previous speeches the word ‘diverse’ was not used a single time. Now, as the government attempts to downplay their irresponsible LNG promises they’ve introduced reference to a diverse economy, sectors or resources eight times!

Honourable speaker, you will recall that for two years now I have been saying the same thing. 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. I’ve stood alone in this house repeatedly attempting to steer the government on a more sustainable path.

Last fall, I went so far as to propose an amendment to the throne speech by including the words:

And that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia accepts the responsibility of demonstrating the leadership to choose growth, to move forward and create a legacy for our children, but also recognizes that this leadership means not gambling our future prosperity on a hypothetical windfall from LNG, and instead supports the development of a diversified, sustainable, 21^st century economy.

In light of the new direction this government is struggling to find, I find it profoundly ironic that they voted against my amendment. What’s even more remarkable is so did the official opposition.

Today, in this chamber, I will offer British Columbians an alternate vision for the future of British Columbia — A vision that is grounded in evidence and at all times puts the interests of British Columbians first.

Introduction

It has been nearly two years since I decided to run for office.

When I made that decision, I did so because I saw an opportunity.

I had spent years studying the possibilities that are available to those societies who are first to act boldly in transitioning to a low carbon economy. In my classes, I would cite statistics, like how in the United States in 2011, green jobs grew at four times the rate of all other sectors combined. Or how between 2007 and 2010, the global market for environmental technology and resource efficiency expanded at an average rate of 11.8 percent per annum.

I advised governments at all levels on the policies they could take at the time to seize those opportunities. And I saw British Columbia begin to show leadership in doing just that.

But as the government then shifted all of its efforts, and all of its hopes, to the LNG pipedream, I saw us lose that leadership. I watched as we went from leaders in developing a 21st Century economy, to laggards, scurrying back to the 20th century, hoping for an out-dated and unrealistic LNG windfall.

As I watched that leadership unravel, I was reminded of something I would tell my students. If you want your government to show leadership on the issues you care about, I would tell them, you need to elect people who will act on your concerns. Or, if you feel like none of the candidates is seriously addressing the issues you are worried about, you should run for office yourself.

Ultimately, I decided that it was time to take my own advice. I ran for office because I saw an opportunity to use my role as an MLA to help build a vision that would put our province on a path to develop a 21st Century economy. Now, after nearly two years, I feel this is more important than ever.

In the shadows of the massive challenges that we face, our province needs new leadership.

Leadership that offers a vision for how to make peoples’ lives better.

Leadership that pushes boldly forward when no one else will, because they see the opportunities — economically, socially and environmentally — to be the first to end homelessness, the first to act on climate change and the first to transition to a 21st century economy.

Leadership that’s willing to be a lightning rod in the legislature, when that’s what’s necessary, and to advance reasonable, common sense ideas that can help address British Columbians’ pressing concerns.

Leadership doesn’t wait for public opinion — it builds it.

If there is one clear message from the Throne Speech it’s that this legislature has lost its leadership. And British Columbians are paying the price.

We have a government that is out of ideas and an Official Opposition that is bent on criticism when, more than ever, what we need is vision and an honest conversation about the challenges we face and the solutions available to address them.

We have built a political culture that puts personal ego, political games and partisan rhetoric ahead of the most important obligation we as elected representatives have: To provide leadership and direction to move British Columbia forward. We have been tasked with addressing the greatest challenges of our time — not adding to them.

Yet, too often the pursuit of narrow self interest trumps the interests of British Columbians. This is because most of us in this room will not have to live with the long-term consequences of the decisions that we make.

We have to do better. And doing better starts with a basic willingness to work across party lines.

I have always said that I will support a good idea when I see it, I will contribute to a poor idea when I can help make it better and I will oppose a bad idea when that’s what’s necessary.

But steadfast opposition is a last resort. Our challenges are too big, and the consequences are too profound. Opposition has to be more than standing on the sidelines and lobbing dirt until the government is buried and broken. There’s no vision—no leadership—in slinging mud. We don’t have to agree, but we do need to have honest discussions that extend beyond partisan squabbles. And we need to demonstrate the respect we expect to receive towards our ideas, when we consider the ideas of others.

We expect more from government. We expect a demonstrated commitment to govern for all British Columbians —not merely for those who voted for them—or funded them. This means an honest and open commitment to seek out the perspectives and ideas of others and evaluate them based on their merits, not on their source. It is disrespectful of British Columbians to be presented with a throne speech completely void of ideas when so many people are struggling to get by and when so many solutions exist. It speaks to the lack of leadership in this government that they did not do more to actively seek out and try to incorporate the ideas of others —particularly when they were so lacking on ideas themselves.

We have to do better. Being an MLA — whether in opposition or in government — has to be about more than partisan squabbles and staying in power.

I find myself between two parties, each of which has institutionalized disrespect for the ideas, and in some cases the existence, of the other. We must return to debating the challenges facing our province — including those that began under an NDP government, those that began under a Liberal government, and those that began before either was ever in power. Let us now demonstrate the leadership that British Columbians expect of us and begin to discuss concrete ideas that, by working together, we can turn into the solutions we need to the challenges we face.

21st Century Economy

Let’s start with the economy.

We have a unique opportunity in British Columbia to be at the cutting edge in the development of a 21st century economy.

Our high quality of life and beautiful natural environment attract some of the best and brightest from around the globe —we are a destination of choice. Our high school students are consistently top ranked — with the OECD specifying BC as one of the smartest academic jurisdictions in the world. And we have incredible potential to create clean, renewable energy sectors to sustain our growing economy. When we speak about developing a 21st century economy — one that is innovative, resilient, diverse, and sustainable — these are unique strengths we should be leveraging.

Unfortunately, instead of investing in a 21st Century economy, our government has banked all its hopes on an irresponsible, unrealistic fossil fuel windfall, with its Liquefied Natural Gas sector. We are already seeing these promises unravel. I’ve been saying this was inevitable for more than 2 years. Now more than ever, we have an urgency to invest in a 21st century economy, so B.C. can continue to prosper. Here’s where we could start:

A 21st Century economy is sustainable — environmentally, socially and financially. We should be investing in up-and-coming sectors like the clean tech sector that create well-paying, long-term, local jobs and that grow our economy without sacrificing our environment.

Similarly, by steadily increasing emissions pricing, we can send a signal to the market that incentivises innovation and the transition to a low carbon economy. The funding could be transferred to municipalities across the province so that they might have the resources to deal with their aging infrastructure and growing transportation barriers.

By investing in the replacement of aging infrastructure in communities throughout the province we stimulate local economies and create jobs. By moving to this polluter-pays model of revenue generation for municipalities, we reduce the burden on regressive property taxes. Done right, this model would lead to municipalities actually reducing property taxes, thereby benefitting home owners, fixed-income seniors, landlords and their tenants.

Yes, we should be investing in trade skills, as described, for example, under the B.C. jobs plan. But we should also be investing further in education for 21st century industries like biotech, high tech and clean tech.

Natural gas has an important role to play. But, we should use it to build our domestic market and explore options around using it to power local transport. BC businesses such as Westport Innovations and Vedder Transport have already positioned British Columbia as an innovative global leader in this area.

We could invest in innovation in the aquaculture industry, like the land-based technologies used by the Namgis First Nation on Vancouver Island who raise Atlantic salmon without compromising wild stocks.

The logging industry is booming as we send record amounts of unprocessed logs overseas. Now is the time to retool mills to foster a value-added second growth forestry industry.

These are just a few ideas that could help us move to the cutting edge in 21st the century economy. Fundamental to all of these ideas is the need to ensure that economic opportunities are done in partnership with First Nations.

Environment

The continued prosperity of 21st century extractive industries, like mining, which are critical to BC’s economy, require a strong and enduring social license to operate. Government has a crucial leadership role to play in this area. British Columbians are looking to their government to ensure that resource projects in B.C. prosper safely, responsibly and sustainably.

Unfortunately, over the last decade the BC government has weakened environmental monitoring expectations to dangerous levels that have cast dark shadows over our province’s extractive industries. From 2009 to 2014, the number of Government Licensed Science Officers – like foresters, geoscientists, and engineers — in government service dropped by 15 per cent and their work has been discontinued, diluted, or contracted out to the private sector.

When we fail to adequately monitor and inspect industrial activities, environmental disasters – like the tailings pond breach at the Mount Polley mine – occur, threatening the reputation of the entire industry and making it more difficult for projects to earn that essential social license. This needs to change.

Government Licensed Science Officers, have been, and could continue to be, our environmental safety net — when resourced properly they ensure that as our province prospers. And it does so with an eye to environmental stewardship and public safety. Reinvesting in keeping these positions in house, helps ensure government has the experience necessary to ensure we prosper safely.

If industries are going to thrive with a social license, we must ensure the environmental review process is stringent and upholds the highest standards, instead of being a symbolic or political rubber stamp process. We just have to look to the National Energy Board hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline project to see how a poor review process can completely undermine any hope of earning a social license.

The costs of prospering safely in British Columbia should be borne by those who are prospering from our rich natural resources. That’s why we should look at financing these changes through a small increase in the corporate income tax. British Columbia already has one of North America’s most competitive tax climates for businesses with one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Canada. The Report of the Expert Panel on BC’s Business Tax Competitiveness found that a 0.5% increase of the general corporate income tax rate could generate $147 million a year.

These are small changes that could make a big difference in assuring British Columbians that their government is taking leadership to ensure resource industries prosper safely.

Affordability

A 21st century economy must also be an affordable one.

Right now, over half a million British Columbians are currently living in poverty. Of this number, over 160,000 are children. Four B.C. cities have recently been ranked among the five least affordable cities in Canada.

The government responds to these facts with the same old mantra: It can’t do more until the economy grows. Yet, we hear year after year from the government that the economy is growing, and this year we even have more than a $444 million budget surplus.

The fact is, we have seen growth, we have money to invest, and we know that if we invest capital smartly we will actually save in operating costs. So let me offer a few ideas of where we could start:

The Official Opposition has advocated for ending the atrocious policy of clawing back income supports for single mothers. It’s not an expensive change, but it’s an important one, so let’s start here.

Let’s also fix the Registered Disability Savings Plans and Registered Educational Savings Plans. Currently, RDSPs and RESPs do not receive the same protection that RRSPs and RRIFs do when a family or individual is faced with bankruptcy. This means that when faced with bankruptcy, these already vulnerable individuals lose the one thing that would otherwise provide a glimmer of hope for a financially stable future. By simply providing creditor protection for disabled individuals and children’s education funds we can make the pathway out of poverty that much easier for those individuals experiencing bankruptcy. And let me be clear: This is a policy change—it doesn’t cost anything.

At the same time we know from other jurisdictions, that by providing chronically homeless individuals with a home through Housing First Policies, we not only provide individuals with a basic human right – shelter – but also better health outcomes, all while realizing long-term, overall net savings to government.

Medicine Hat saw a 26% decrease in emergency shelter use in just four years and has housed over 800 people, including over 200 children. Utah has reduced chronic homelessness by 72% as of 2014. A housing first pilot project in Denver, Colorado found emergency related costs and incarceration costs declined by 72.95% and 76% respectively, while emergency shelter costs were reduced by an average of $13,600 per person. Canada’s own At Home/Chez Soi study found that for every $10 invested in housing first services there was an average savings of $21.72.

The solutions to our province’s affordability crisis are out there, and those solutions themselves are affordable. We just need to invest in them. Given everything we know, the question becomes this: how can we afford not to?

Health Care

The need for affordability must extend to quality health care too.

We can be proud that B.C. was recently ranked the healthiest province in Canada. This ranking shines a positive light on the healthy lifestyle choices British Columbians make each day. Yet, while we celebrate our successes, we must also remember that our health care system faces serious challenges.

With a highly regressive health care funding system, an aging population, major gaps in primary care, and surgery waitlists lasting anywhere from months to years, it is time for government to take a serious look at how our Health Care System is funded and administered.

British Columbia is the only province in Canada that continues to charge MSP premiums. Such premiums unfairly burden low and fixed income British Columbians with an overly heavy tax burden. With individuals earning a net annual income of $30,000 paying the same monthly flat fee as those earning $3,000,000 per year, it is evident that MSP premiums are perhaps the most regressive form of taxation in B.C.

Instead of charging MSP premiums, we could look at shifting to alternative, more progressive options such as was done in Ontario and Quebec. Rather than flat-rate fees, health premiums can be paid through the personal income tax systems. This avoids the regressive effects of flat-rate premiums and diminishes the additional costs associated with administering the MSP program.

But it can’t stop there. We also need to address the growing gaps in primary care. Doctor shortages and long wait times to get an appointment have led to increased use of walk-in clinics and emergency room services. Unfortunately, this can be costly for both patients and our health system, as a lack of follow-up and co-ordination can mean problems are missed or poorly managed.

Let’s look at investing more in Nurse Practitioners to help close some of these gaps and provide the high quality and timely care that British Columbians pay for and need. Let’s find more effective ways of funding these Nurse Practitioners. Let’s re-examine our approach to the delivery of chronic care services. Relying on acute care services, such as walk-in clinics and hospital emergency rooms, to deal with chronic health issues is both costly and inefficient.

Let’s consider increasing community and at-home care programs, which have been shown to provide better care at a more affordable cost. And let’s lobby the Federal government for our fair share of Canadian Health Transfer revenue, a share that reflects our demographics and the actual cost of delivering health services.

The possibilities for improving our health care system are plenty. As our population continues to age and gaps in primary health care continue to grow, it is more important now than ever to commit to re-examining how we provide affordable, quality health care in B.C.

Education

Public education represents perhaps the most important investment government can make for the prosperity of our province. Each and every one of us has attended school and that experience has shaped who we are, what we do and how we contribute to society. And public education is absolutely critical in teaching the next generation of British Columbians to think critically, contribute responsibly to society, and become the leaders of tomorrow.

Given this, why have we not shown more leadership in the Education sector?

At the end of the strike last fall, the government spoke about “an historic six-year agreement…which means five years of labour peace ahead of us.”

The implication of this sound bite is NOT that government is stepping up to the task of finding new ways to fund and deliver a leading public education system. The reality is that they are stepping back, allowing their dysfunctional relationship with teachers to simmer, only to boil over again in a few years.

We are stepping back despite an overall 18% and a whopping 44% aboriginal six-year high school non-completion rate. We have school boards at a loss for how to fund their operations due to seemingly endless budget cuts. Surely this is not indicative of a government properly valuing publication education.

It is time for the government to take leadership.

Leadership means ensuring that the resources needed for success are provided. Over the last 13 years, education funding as a percentage of provincial GDP has declined from a high of about 6.4% to an estimated low of about 5.0%. This is not indicative of a government that is prioritizing education. We need to find new, progressive funding sources to reinvest in education.

Leadership means acknowledging that behind the curtain of the BCPSEA is the provincial government. Yet it is the government, not BCPSEA, that draws the lines in the sand on funding. By dismantling the BCSPEA and bringing its operations back into government, a signal could be sent that government is serious in developing a new relationship with teachers.

Leadership also requires a clear eyed assessment of what’s working, and what isn’t – and clearly a ‘one size fits all’ approach isn’t working. The needs on Haida Gwaii, are different from those on Vancouver Island which in turn are different from those in Surrey or Prince George. Now is the time to explore whether or not class size and composition negotiations are better conducted at the school district level instead of the provincial level.

The status quo on education isn’t addressing the growing challenges. We cannot wait until the next labour dispute. Now is the time to sit down with all those involved and start a dialogue about what a 21st century education system looks like, including how it is funded.

Conclusion

Honourable speaker, I’ve outlined an alternate direction that the province of British Columbia could and should be taking.

It’s a direction that puts the interests of British Columbians first, whether they be resident hunters, fishers, farmers, forestry workers, miners, educators, engineers, students or labourers, to name just a few examples.

Honourable Speaker, we have a government that is out of ideas, lacking leadership, creativity and innovation, and void of a vision.

Honourable Speaker, we have an official opposition that is almost exclusively focused on pointing out the government’s failures without ever offering viable solutions. Witness the amendment before us as a perfect example of this. And I quote:

“and that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia regrets that the families in the province have seen their wages fall as they pay more for their basic services, while the government gives a break to the highest two per cent of income earners; regrets that the government has failed to meet its commitment that all British Columbians will have access to a general practitioner by 2015; regrets that seniors still do not have flexible options for home care or assisted living; regrets that young people in the province face uncertain job prospects as the government has bet on one sector rather than working with businesses and workers across B.C. to reach their potential; and regrets that the government will not fulfill its commitment for at least one LNG pipeline and terminal online in B.C. by 2015.”

Where are the solutions? We cannot stop at the word “regrets”, the key word littered throughout the proposed NDP amendment. Solving the concerns of British Columbians requires us to find solutions. And that starts with new ideas and new leadership.

Honourable Speaker, we have an official opposition that is also out of ideas, lacking leadership, creativity and innovation, and void of a vision.

And ultimately, Honourable Speaker, it is British Columbians who are paying the price for this lack of leadership from both parties.

There are too many people struggling in British Columbia for us to accept this status quo. There are too many incredible economic opportunities passing us by as we put all of our eggs in the LNG basket. To quote Preston Manning, “we are counting our chickens before the rooster even enters the hen house.”

We need real leadership in British Columbia and that starts with a willingness to offer new ideas, and to approach other peoples’ ideas constructively and with the same respect that we hope others will approach our ideas with. And that leadership could start here today by passing my subamendment that proposes adding the words:

“and recognizes that leadership in government requires a commitment to seek out and incorporate ideas from others, while leadership in opposition requires a commitment to offering solutions, and hence calls on this House to collaborate on the development of a new vision for British Columbia that builds on the good ideas of all members, regardless of their party affiliation.”

Thank you Honourable Speaker.