In Committee A on Thursday, April 3, the Budget Estimates debates for the Housing Ministry were up. I had the opportunity to question the Minister, Honourable Rich Coleman, on a topic that I felt deserved to be explored more thoroughly. In particular, I was concerned that as a result of the recent controversy surrounding the Portland Hotel Society, the extremely important programs offered by this society would suffer. If this were to happen, the most vulnerable in our society would be those who ended up being hurt the most by the scandal.

As noted in the questions and answers extracted from Hansard and reproduced below, the Minister offered very reassuring responses that clearly indicate that the Portland Hotel Society’s programs will continue to operate, albeit under different management and a new Board.

Question 1:

A. Weaver: I have a couple of questions. First off, I’d like to apologize to the minister and the critic. I had not planned to ask Housing questions just because so much is going on at the same time, but I did want to ask just a couple of questions on a topic that I think needs to be addressed. These are pertaining to the Portland Hotel Society.

I’d like to acknowledge first off that it’s clearly been noted that a vast majority of the projects supported by this B.C. Housing do excellent work and are highly accountable. I also know that everybody is trying to ensure that we learn from the mistakes that happened and is trying to remedy these mistakes at the Portland Hotel Society.

Nevertheless, I have a couple of quick questions. First, if the minister is able to let me know, what is the allocated budget for the Portland Hotel Society in this fiscal year?

Answer:

Hon. R. Coleman: The budget we’re providing to that particular society this year would be approximately $9 million from Housing and about $9 million from Health.

Question 2:

A. Weaver: I’m wondering what steps the minister is taking to ensure that the mismanagement of public expenses at the Portland Hotel Society — not only the hotel society but potentially other housing societies. What account, what steps are being taken to ensure that mismanagement will not occur in the future?

Answer:

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t want this discussion to leave any question that all of a sudden every non-profit society in British Columbia isn’t operating properly in housing. We have about 500 societies we do business with. They operate either, in some cases, in one building and sometimes multiple buildings. Sometimes they have other relationships in government with regards to social services or health.

Basically, the first thing I want to do is give the typical review process for the member, because this is what drives where we get to. I will say this: in this case, this is the most egregious anomaly that I have ever seen in housing in British Columbia, what went on at the Portland Hotel Society with regards to — not the services to the client but the poor management, the arm’s-length decisions that actually were interrelated with people, family, relatives and friends on social enterprises that weren’t profitable and ended up having to be subsidized, and the egregious spending with regards to some luxurious trips where people are actually donating to an organization where this should never happen.

I can tell you that they are an anomaly on that file, but here is the typical review process. B.C. Housing, a non–profit housing provider — I can give this to members; you don’t have to write it down — prepare and agree on a budget for the upcoming fiscal year on an annual basis. Our staff sit down with every society, go over their budget from the previous year, and set up a budget. Once the fiscal year is over, the auditor would require the non-profit providers to submit an audited financial statement. So they can have a bookkeeper, somebody doing their books all year long. Their books then have to go to a separate auditor, a chartered accountant, to do an audited financial statement. We review the financial statements and budgets to the budget versus actual on an annual basis for each one of these organizations.

Based on that review, we will make adjustments to the budget if it’s required, or we can sit down and talk to them about a range of some minor changes or further discussions, specific financial or operational costs that need to be improved. It’s an ongoing working relationship to make sure we’re all doing a good job.

The housing providers implement the changes that we recommend to them, and B.C. Housing follows up to ensure changes are made. So that’s what we do. This is how we operate this.

If changes are not made and the concerns continue to escalate, then we will escalate action based on the issues of the breaches that are noted. If we think that somebody is, for instance, not managing their maintenance account very well or their capital reserve has been misspent, and if they continue to do that, there could be a number of things. We could come in and sit down with the board and say: “You’re not doing your fiduciary duty. You need to improve this.” We can sit down with the management and help them improve their management practices and accounting. But we work with these guys, recognizing that in many cases…. All of these boards are volunteers, and so we recognize the personal commitment they have made to their communities.

When it really goes outside of that relationship not working, that’s the only time escalation would include a B.C. Housing internal audit team or a third-party auditor going in and taking a look at the books, which was the case of…. Every one of those steps actually happened on Portland. The Portland Hotel Society were audited in 2002. We initiated a third-party audit of the society then after the regular oversight process identified some operation and financial issues. One of the things that was taking place at the time is their accountant had passed away. There were some concerns because there were issues with their books. A third-party firm at that time went in, were brought in, to conduct an audit. Upon completion of that audit, B.C. Housing and the Portland Hotel Society took the required actions to implement the recommendation. So they actually did what they were told to do back in 2002. They went through and basically did their thing.

We’ve asked the new board, even with accounting for privacy rules, if they could please release that audit. But at the time, when we looked at releasing it back then, we weren’t allowed to under protection of privacy issues.

Those recommendations in that audit were implemented immediately. For the next number of years, the audited financial statements every year was matched up to the budget. There were no issues with the spending or concerns that were flagged until about 2010, when we started to see a small deficit.

That brought us through a number of processes and audits in a period of time up to the date that we actually we had to do the unfortunate thing that we had to do with the Portland Hotel Society and basically change its management and its board. It was either do that or take it into receivership and take it over financially.

Question 3:

A. Weaver: Thank you, minister, for that answer. My concern for this is the services that the society provided. My final question is: what steps in this budget is the minister taking to ensure the essential services such as Insite, the safe injection site, are actually sustainable for the community that the Portland Hotel Society served?

Answer:

Hon. R. Coleman: That’s a very fair question. You go through this unfortunate process, but you do have people that work for this society and units they manage. And they have the services and programs they deliver for both health and for housing that work and, quite frankly, are doing valuable work with the some of the hardest to house and hardest people in the community.

The arrogance of the people that were their bosses doesn’t mean…. It should not reflect on their concern and love for the people that they actually deal with every day. So what we did to make sure that this is stable and controlled is….

We had three options in front of us. One, to have the executive, the management team, resign and replace the management team and have the board resign and replace the board.

Two was to say: “In cooperation, because we’re not going to fund you anymore, if you don’t agree with these changes, you’re in receivership. You have two issues in and around receivership. You can accept it, or you can challenge it in court. If you wish to do either one of those, we will pursue it either way.” They chose to leave, which is better for the society, because it does have members that are members of the society and who, I think, were a part of a valuable thing that was happening for the people that were the clients of the organization.

Today, what we’ve done is we’ve gone in and put in a new board. We have a chair, Faye Wightman, who used to be the head of the Vancouver Foundation, on the board. We have, Ida Goodreau, who used to be the CEO of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, on the board.

We brought in Jim O’Day. I’ve known Jim for decades. He was actually at one time the chair of B.C. Housing, a number of years ago. He has quite a good reputation on working with societies for developments and stuff like that, in that field.

Then there is Andy Broderick from Vancity and four other people. We brought in very good, high performing people to be volunteers on this board.

Then we went in and said, “Well, now the management’s gone,” so we took a senior management from B.C. Housing and the senior manager from Health, who now run the Portland Hotel Society operation.

In addition to that, we brought in Deloitte to basically be the accountant within the society to take a look at all the documentation and all the receipts that led up to this thing so that we’ll have any concerns there but also, obviously build a long-term financial plan for the sustainability of the society.

We will look at all of these social enterprises that basically were put in place by Portland, arm’s length to any funding we gave, but they were cross-subsidizing and it led to some of the deficit problems, because they weren’t well run or they had interrelationships that should not have existed in an organization like this.

We will analyze all of that and determine which ones are sustainable, which are not, which ones make sense, which…. You know, if it’s a painting contract to a friendly company owned by somebody that’s friendly, then we’re going to let that contract go out for bid, and they can all bid on it. That sort of thing, right? There will be competition brought in and some accountability to those expenses.

We’re in the process right now of selecting an interim CEO — sorry, an executive director and a director of finance for the organization so that…. We obviously don’t want our senior managers having to run Portland in the long term. We will go through with a restructuring of the management. Then, in addition to that as we go along, we will eventually transition the board back to some community members as well, who will part of the long-term board.

That’s basically the structure we put in place to protect it. Obviously there will be some changes on the fiscal side at Portland Hotel Society. There won’t be any trips down the Danube or limousine cruises to concerts or trips to Disneyland, you know, those types of things really raised the ire, quite frankly, of the public and unfortunately damaged the great reputation of so many good societies that do work in British Columbia, including the Downtown Eastside.

You could go through these other organizations who do the same accountability process, as I described, every year — they’re audited financial statements — who work with us. You can improve the management. You can always get a situation with a society where there’s some little management glitch that needs to be improved. We work with them to solve those problems and to improve their ability to manage, because that’s part of the education management process when we’re the funder and the holder of the operating agreement with them.

I think that we’ve done…. I shouldn’t say “we.” The folks at B.C. Housing and the folks at Health have done an exceptional job dealing with a very difficult problem. At the end of the day, we did so in such a way that we had the compassion and concern for the very difficult clients that the Portland Hotel Society serves. While we’re doing that, we’re protecting the integrity of the non-profit sector and moving on to get to where this society will have a long-term viability as well

How many of us plan for bankruptcy? Very few. Unfortunately, it happens far too often. When it occurs, individuals inevitably struggle to rebuild their lives in the hope that one day they will become financially stable once more.

Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) were first introduced federally in 1957. Legislation enabling Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs) was subsequently brought forward in the late 1970’s thereby permitting seniors to withdraw their RRSP funds over time instead of all at once or through purchase of an annuity. Since that time, most provinces, including British Columbia, have recognized the importance of protecting RRSPs and RRIFs from creditors in the event of personal bankruptcy. They have passed legislation to protect RRSPs and RRIFs from being seized during bankruptcy. This provides a bankrupt individual a glimmer of hope that they will not be destitute in their old age. Here in British Columbia, such seizures are governed by the 1996 Court Order Enforcement Act.

In 2008 the Federal Government passed legislation to allow for the creation of Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs). The RDSP is a federal, tax-deferred, long-term savings plan for people with disabilities who want to save for the future. Unfortunately, under the Court Order Enforcement Act,  RDSPs  are not listed as a registered plan in BC’s legislation and are therefore not exempt from creditor protection. Therefore, should an individual with an RDSP go into debt, their savings in the RDSP will not be protected from seizure.

Today in the Legislature I posed the the following question to the Minister of Justice:

A. Weaver: Most provinces, including British Columbia, have recognized the importance of protecting RRSPs and RIFs from creditors in the event of personal bankruptcy. They’ve passed legislation to protect these registered plans from being seized during bankruptcy. This provides a bankrupt individual a glimmer of hope that they will not be destitute in their old age. Here in B.C. such seizures are governed by the 1996 Court Order Enforcement Act. In 2008 the federal government passed legislation to allow for the creation of registered disability savings plans. These are called RDSPs. The RDSP is a tax-deferred, long-term savings plan for people with disabilities who want to save for the future. Unfortunately, under the same act, RDSPS are not listed as a registered plan and are therefore not exempt from creditor protection. My question is to the Justice Minister. It’s this. Does the government have a plan to provide creditor protection for disabled individuals as in, for example, the province of Alberta?

The Minister of Justice responded:

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the member opposite for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, because it is an important one. Our government is committed to modernizing our laws and keeping them up with protecting our vulnerable citizens. When new things come along, like this particular plan, it has to keep up as well. It is an important issue for people with disabilities and their families. We are looking at it as part of the general review of the Court Order Enforcement Act. We’re looking at our legislation. We’re comparing it with other provinces to ensure harmonization. There are complex questions attached to the issue, I’m told, but we will be looking at those. I’d be glad to keep the member abreast of where we’re going and keep him involved in the discussion, because it is a matter that needs to be addressed

The Federal Government has also created the Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) designed to allow parents to save for their children’s education after they graduate from high school.

Today in the House, I also posed the supplemental question to the Minister of Justice:

A. Weaver: The province of Alberta actually, just this past December, also passed legislation to provide creditor protection for RESPs, the registered educational savings plans. My question again is: does the government have a similar plan to protect a child who, through no fault of their own, might see their education investment seized by creditors?

The Minister of Justice responded:

Hon. S. Anton: Again, I would be very glad to have a look at that one as well. I think that the thoughts behind it are the same. I appreciate the member bringing it to our attention. I would be glad to work with him moving forward on it.

Both these answers are very reassuring and I look forward to working with government and the official opposition to bring in legislation that modernizes the Court Order Enforcement Act.

The province of Alberta has already taken such measures and amended their Civil Enforcement Act to include RDSPs under Section 92.1(I): Exemption of registered plans and registered disability savings plans. On December 13, 2013, legislation in Alberta received Royal Assent thereby also protecting RESPs from creditors.

By ensuring the financial security and well-being of those living with disabilities, we are not only providing the individuals and their loved ones with a sense of security, we are also reducing the strain on social services that incurs when individuals are unable to care for themselves. By also including RESPs in section 71.3 of the Court Order Enforcement Act, we are protecting children who, through no fault of their own, might see their education investment seized by creditors.

Budget Speech

“At 17, I may not be old enough to vote, but I still feel it is of paramount importance to convey my dissatisfaction with our government’s blatant disregard for these legally binding targets.  Policy decisions made today will undoubtedly have an effect on my life—both in the short and the long-term—and with this at the forefront of my mind, I stand in defense of my future”

I hope those words echo through the walls of this chamber. They are the words of Tessa Owens, an incredibly articulate and engaged young woman who, together with 20 other students, visited my office on February 3. The legally binding targets that she was referring to, of course, are our 2020 climate targets. Enshrined in law; grounded in necessity.

The students came as a part of the Defend our Future Rallies, held throughout British Columbia. They sat in my office, united behind a single message: They care about their future and they expect their government to care too. Not when it’s convenient, but when it’s necessary. And what I think we can all agree on is that now more than ever, it is necessary.

With this message in mind, I ask this chamber: Does this budget do all it can to create opportunities today that last for generations; to transition our economy to one where we live within our means, so that future generations are supported, and not burdened, by the decisions we make today?

Let me be clear: I do not intend to use my time here to simply sling mud at the budget. I do have concerns—strong concerns—and I will voice them. But I will also recognize when the government has taken steps in the right direction and I will offer constructive ideas for moving forward.

There is no doubt that there are some strong points in the budget. We have managed to keep our spending under control at a time when few other provinces have. Yet, creating lasting opportunities for all British Columbians requires more than this. We need to prioritize up-and-coming industries to ensure we have long-term, well-paying and local jobs. We need to build on our vibrant social support system, grounded in evidence-based practices and sound economics. And we need to sustainably manage our environment so that future generations are not saddled with the debt of climate change.

My concern with this budget is that in its essence it is grounded in the expectation of an LNG boom. LNG has been positioned as a necessity for making progress on other issues—and if it doesn’t materialize, we could very well be undermining our efforts today to create lasting opportunities for British Columbians.

The history of BC’s LNG industry is a history of high-stakes promises and low-stakes delivery. We are betting our future on an industry that still offers no certainty. So I ask you today, what if it fails? What steps are we taking today, to prepare for the very real possibility that the LNG industry might not be as successful as the government hopes—that it might not create as many jobs or offer as much revenue as the government is predicting? How will we ensure a secure and affordable tomorrow for British Columbians if tomorrow doesn’t include an LNG windfall?

The unfortunate fact is we have no back-up plan; instead we have put all our eggs in one basket. In the words of Preston Manning, “we’re counting our eggs before the rooster has even entered the hen-house” and this budget does not offer a contingency plan in case the rooster never makes it, or in case the hen lays fewer eggs than we had hoped.

Smart, secure planning for the future means creating realistic plans, that convey honest expectations and solid contingencies in case our first, second or third plan does not materialize as hoped. Anyone who has managed their own investments knows that strong, resilient investment strategies are based on diversified portfolios. We need to do the same with our economy. While the government hopes for LNG in the future, we need to prioritize investment now in other up-and-coming sectors so we have more than one hen to bank on.

Yet, creating the future young people are calling for is ultimately about how we develop the economy. The floods in Calgary and Britain, record droughts in California and Vancouver Island, record breaking heat and fires in Australia, devastation in the Philippines from typhoon Haiyan and in New York from Hurricane Sandy together serve to remind us that there is more to creating opportunity than conventional economics. We only need to look at our own coastal communities suffering as the shellfish industry closes due to acidification in the ocean. Environmental catastrophes associated with climate change are already causing billions of dollars in damage. The debt of climate change may not be easily quantified in our 2014 budget, but we will be forced to quantify it in future budgets if we do not continue to act to mitigate and adapt to it.

Meanwhile as more and more research measures the cost to society of poverty and homelessness, of not adequately addressing mental health issues, and of not adequately supporting those in need, it becomes increasingly clear that our inaction in addressing social inequities and health concerns will burden future generations with a social and economic debt that we have unnecessarily perpetuated and that we have the power to solve today.

And so when I look at this budget, and as I consider whether to support it or not, part of what I consider is this: Does it take steps to offer British Columbians a back-up plan? Does it adequately invest in diversified industries? Will it allow us to better address our social challenges? And will it keep us on track to meet our climate targets so that present and future generations can have the best opportunities possible?

In many case, I feel we could do more. We could prioritize our investments differently to create a more resilient and affordable economy; one that is founded on a strengthened social support system, a healthy environment, and a practice of living within our means. There are clear examples from around the world that we can draw on to show that the economy, environment and social supports do not have to be trade-offs. We do not have to pit opportunities for present generations against those for future generations. We can move beyond the outdated notion that you have to choose the environment, the economy or the social sector. Other jurisdictions have found strategic and targeted ways to integrate all three, just like we did with our Climate Action Plan. By building on our own history and by drawing inspiration from those jurisdictions that continue to lead the way, we can take practical steps today to build that future.

Yet while I am not fully satisfied with this budget, when considering my vote I must also consider how best I can contribute, as a single MLA, to building the vision that I share with so many British Columbians. I am a firm believer that being a member of the opposition is about more than opposing—it is about offering constructive suggestions, grounded in evidence, for improving our province. And so with this in mind, I turn to the specifics of the budget, to consider these questions.

Back-up Plan/Economy

While the budget does not offer a comprehensive back-up plan, it does take small, yet important, steps in the right direction. Amending the Film and Television Production Regulation to include the Capital Regional District in the Distant Location Tax Credit will support our local film industry to flourish even further. Supporting the First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund with an additional $1 million will help promote further First Nations involvement in the development of our clean tech industry.

We need to build on investments like these. Rather than going all-in on LNG, we need to prioritize and invest in a more diverse portfolio of sectors, such as clean tech, film, agriculture, and eco-tourism that will contribute to resilient economic growth, regardless of whether the LNG dream materializes. The United States is doing just that. In their drive towards a low-carbon economy, the United States has limited the expansion of its thermal coal exports and is shifting its focus to renewable energy and the clean tech sector. They too are developing their natural gas sector, but are doing so as a part of a broader plan to transition to a low carbon economy. BC is going in the opposite direction. While our province was once at the forefront of promoting innovation and economic prosperity through our renewable energy industry and our carbon off-set program, we have started falling behind in a race that’s too important to give up on.

US states such as Washington State and Oregon are already seeing the economic benefits of developing their clean energy sectors. With the establishment of a new BMW facility in Moses Lake that manufactures carbon fibre components for electric vehicles and a Google Data Centre in The Dalles, Washington and Oregon have been placed “at the cutting edge of the technological revolution”, resulting in both job creation and economic diversity across the region.

British Columbia has the resources and expertise to build a strong, diversified economy. Let’s recognize and support these other sectors with clear investments so they too can be positioned for greater growth and success.

Education

Ensuring British Columbians can succeed in a resilient and diverse economy, requires us to continue to build a strong foundation in high-quality, affordable education. I applaud the government for its investments into skills training. Investments into new trades training facilities, such as those at Camosun College, will support thousands of students in the future to develop the skills they need to succeed in our economy.  I also recognize the value of the BC Training and Education Savings Program grant that will offer $1200 to children born after January 1, 2007 for the RESP. Assuming steps are taken to ensure parents have knowledge about the program and that applying is both easy and accessible, this is an example of one way the government can make education more affordable.

Yet I am concerned by the cuts to funding for advanced education. University Presidents across the province have already made it clear that further cuts will impact student services and education. At some point we run the risk that these cuts will be downloaded onto students through additional increases in tuition fees. Average student debt in BC is already well-above the national average, with some students starting to see higher education as an economic burden, rather than an economic opportunity. We need to change this.

We also need to move beyond the adversarial relationship between the government and the BC Teachers Federation that ultimately hurts our students. We need to get the parties back to the bargaining table and negotiate a future for our education system that puts politics aside and puts our students first.

Our ability to prosper in today’s economy and in tomorrow’s—to create jobs today that last well into the future—will depend on our ability to offer an accessible, high-quality education to our students. The higher the student debt and the lower the investment we make in our education systems, the more strain we put on our education system and on students. We need to be leaders in educating not just for today’s economy, but for tomorrow’s, and that starts with prioritizing education.

Affordability

While we invest in a diverse and resilient economy and a quality and accessible education system, we must also ensure our province is affordable for all British Columbians.

At a time when the cost of buying a house is prohibitive for many young families, the government has taken a small step to make that first home purchase more affordable by increasing the Property Transfer Tax exemption limit to $475,000.

Meanwhile, as homelessness persists, the government has committed to increasing investment in supportive housing and transferring property to non-profit organizations that provide affordable housing to low-income British Columbians. These are clear steps in the right direction that will help make life a little more affordable.

Yet at the same time as we are making these investments into affordability, the government is also raising MSP premiums and BC hydro rates, while dropping the personal income tax exemption to $9,869, meaning families will be taxed on an additional $1500 of their income compared to 2012.

Let’s be clear: These examples represent tax hikes on the poor and most vulnerable. The fact is, not enough is being done to ensure BC remains an affordable place to live for BC families. Echoing a point made by the Representative of Children and Youth, Mary-Ellen Turpel Lafond, the budget also shows no long-term strategy for addressing the fact that B.C. continues to have the highest child poverty rate in Canada.

It seems that for every step that promotes affordability, another step retracts from it. Let us take the good steps made in this budget and to them add a consistent vision for an affordable British Columbia. We can start by exploring the most effective way to abolish MSP premiums, which constitute a highly regressive tax and a net burden on low-income British Columbians, and to raise the equivalent income through our more progressive income and corporate tax system. Let’s also close the bare trust tax loophole that allows wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid the property transfer tax and use that money to invest in affordable housing and other proven social programs.

Utah has been bold enough in its vision to set a goal of ending homelessness within 10 years. 8 years in, while navigating the largest recession since the Great Depression, they are already more than 70% of the way there. Let’s join them in their leadership so we too can build a more equitable society, while also enjoying the net economic benefits of ending homelessness.

Environment

Last week I tabled an amendment to the Throne Speech, asking us, as a House, to recognize as we did 5 years ago that climate change is one of the greatest issues facing our province, to acknowledge that the government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is inconsistent with the current expansion of U.S.-sourced thermal coal exports that leave through B.C. harbours and to explore all means by which the government may halt the expansion of thermal coal exports in B.C.

Some said I went too far—that the government should not pick and choose which substances pass through our ports. To them I say that I believe the government has an obligation, in certain circumstances to prioritize the social and environmental well-being of the province, just as this government has done with its 5 conditions on heavy oil pipelines.

Other said my amendment did not go far enough—that on its own halting the expansion of thermal coal exports will not do enough to solve climate change. To them I say, it would have been an important and practical step in the right direction.

Yet instead of taking this step together, I stood alone and watched as that amendment failed. 73 to 1.

And I have one word for this: Shame

In my response to the budget last year I quoted the Honourable Carole Taylor from her own budget speech in 2008. She ended it by laying out the essential choice we must consider with all budgets:

“We can be the generation that had it all and let it slip away, or we can seize this opportunity which is before us to be the generation of British Columbians who made the right decisions, who chose to take action and, by doing so, showed their respect for the earth, for the atmosphere, for those who came before us and for those who will follow in the decades to come.”

Let’s seize that opportunity. Let’s take practical steps, today, to mitigate climate change, so that future generations can be a little better off. We can start with thermal coal exports. The government could follow Washington State’s lead and include total emissions impacts in future environmental assessments of industrial projects, including new permits for projects such as those proposed on Texada Island.

We can also work together to ensure that LNG development is as clean as possible. We can start by mandating the use of clean energy to power liquefaction facilities. We can invest further in a domestic LNG market aimed at reducing reliance on heavy carbon fuels and specifically engage stakeholders in the ferry and trucking industries to transition their fleets to LNG or CNG. And we can explore means by which our LNG industry can be used to spark development and innovation in our clean tech sector.

Our children are asking us to demonstrate consistency, resolve and leadership on climate change. Let’s not be that generation that had it all and let it slip away.

Conclusion

Having observed and now participated in BC politics for some time, I am concerned that we are institutionalizing a political culture that seeks to undermine and to tear down, rather than to build up and to contribute. It is a culture that feeds on divisiveness and erodes the trust that is so essential to cooperation across party lines. The ideal of a transparent government held to account by a constructive opposition has slipped into a reality epitomized by rhetorical questions and condescending answers.

I ran on a platform to do politics differently, to work across party lines to represent my constituents and to move our province forward. To be sure, there are times when the most helpful thing I can do for our province is to raise my voice in opposition to bad policy. But opposing the government for the simple reason that they support something—as so often seems to happen—should never serve as our starting point. Opposing for the sake of it does nothing to rebuild the trust and cooperative relationships we so desperately need in our political system.

When I look at this budget, there is no question that it is not a budget I would have tabled. It is also clearly not a budget that the Official Opposition would have tabled. Yet as an individual MLA, I must also ask myself: What is the most effective way for me to represent my constituents? Is there more to be gained by raising concerns about the problems and opposing the budget alongside the opposition? Or could I better address my constituents’ concerns by highlighting the parts of this budget that deserve recognition and building on them? In either case, I commit to working with both the government and the official opposition over the next year on the parts of this budget that are important to me and my constituents.

As we reflect on these questions, let us also reflect on the message of all of those students, like Tessa Owens, who visited so many of our constituency offices on February 3^rd. They are looking to us for leadership. They are looking to us to create opportunities today that last for generations. And as we create those opportunities, they are asking us not to burden their generation with the economic, environmental or social debt of ours. At the very least, we owe them that.

By the time their generation inherits this legislature, many of us will be long gone from here. What I ask is that we heed their call; that we commit to leaving a legacy that they too will be proud to build on.

Media Statement: February 18th, 2014
Budget Falls Short of a Diversified and Affordable Economy for British Columbians
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC While Budget 2014 rightly places an importance on living within our means, it falls short of providing a diversified and affordable economy for British Columbians.

“I applaud the Government for investing in new trades training facilities, for raising the threshold for exemption from the property transfer tax and for including the Capital Regional District in the Distant Location Tax Credit for the Film and Television industry,” says MLA Andrew Weaver. “These are clear steps in the right direction. Yet it is also clear that more can be done.”

The Government has described this as a status-quo budget at a time when BC continues to have the highest child poverty rate in the country and is quickly losing its leadership in addressing climate change.

The Government can address issues such as these by making smart investments in our Province and in our workforce, which provide real opportunities for British Columbians today, while ensuring that our children have the same opportunities we do. There are a number of examples of these solutions that link the decisions we make in our economy to our social and environmental needs, including

• U.S. states such as Washington and Oregon are already seeing the economic benefits of developing their clean energy sectors. With the establishment of a new BMW manufacturing facility for zero emission vehicles in Moses Lake, WA and a Google Data Centre in The Dalles, OR, these states have been placed “at the cutting edge of the technological revolution”, resulting in both job creation and economic diversity across the region. We could be doing this in B.C.
• Utah has succeeded in reducing homelessness by 78% in the last 8 years. They based this investment on studies that show a clear net economic benefit to society from addressing homelessness.
• As the social and economic impacts of storms linked to climate change increase, we could follow our Pacific Coast Action Plan partners and explore all means by which the provincial government may halt the expansion of thermal coal exports in British Columbia. This approach would be consistent with the province’s commitment to addressing climate change.

“We need to be taking steps like these in British Columbia. The fact is, the economic prosperity of BC depends on the transition of our economy to one where we live within our means. The opportunities that will be afforded to future generations will depend on our ability to make these investments today.” Said Andrew Weaver

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
1 250 216 3382

On the floor of the House Andrew Weaver spoke to his motion to amend the Throne Speech, highlighting the government’s inconsistency in greenhouse gas targets. Under the province’s climate targets the legislated goal is to reduce emissions from the current 62 megatons of carbon pollution to 43 megatons by 2020 and 13 megatons by 2050. Producing liquefied natural gas through five plants would add 73 megatons to current provincial emissions, making our greenhouse gas targets impossible to keep.

The government has stated LNG exports from BC will reduce Asian, especially China’s, dependency on coal fired power generation, therefore reducing their carbon emissions. If we are serious about reducing global emissions then a better plan would be to halt exports of thermal coal through BC. Doing so would have little impact on provincial employment, or revenue, as the vast majority is produced from US mines.

Transcript: Speech from the floor of the House

“With the 2014 Speech from the Throne the British Columbia Government has once again conveyed its goal of creating jobs, controlling spending and building an economy that is not erected on the backs of future generations.

Like the government, I too believe this is possible. In fact, I believe that the long-term economic prosperity of BC will ultimately depend on us meeting this goal. It will depend on our ability to transition our economy to one that meets the needs of today without sacrificing the welfare of future generations.

However, with this belief comes my assertion that we are not yet there — that there is more to be done — a lot more to be done. We need a vision coupled to a concrete plan of action to get us there.

In 2008, we had such a vision for this economy. It manifested itself alongside the Climate Action Plan and with its inception, we as a province set out on a new path. We — British Columbians — led not only our country, but our continent as we found innovative ways to begin the transition to a strong, low-carbon economy.

In 2008 we had a plan to transition ourselves to this economy—one that was grounded in evidence and accountable to clear, measurable targets. The goal was to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 33% below 2007 levels by 2020. We were on track to achieve this goal. However, under the vision of the current throne speech, I am afraid to say, we will certainly fail.

When I respond to the Budget, I will elaborate on this concern.

Today, however, I would like to focus on the government’s bold assertion that LNG development is “the greatest single step we can take to fight climate change.”

According to the Throne Speech, LNG production could reduce China’s emissions by over 90 megatons per year. Leaving aside the fact that no credible international climate body would offer greenhouse gas reduction credits to a jurisdiction for producing greenhouse gases, let’s still look at the overall numbers.

In 2011 BC emitted 62 megatons of carbon pollution. Our legislated goal is to reduce our provincial emissions to 43 megatons by 2020 and to 13 megatons by 2050.

If LNG is to decrease China’s emissions by 90 megatons per year, we will have to produce it. What this means is that while China could decrease its emissions, we will certainly increase ours. The question is: How much will our own emissions increase and how will this affect our own, provincially legislated climate targets?

According to the Pembina Institute, if we are to meet the government’s revenue projections from LNG, we would need at least 5 LNG plants. These plants would emit roughly 73 megatons of carbon pollution each year. That is nearly double our 2020 target and more than 5 times our 2050 target.

What does this all mean? Selling LNG to China so that it might decrease its carbon emissions means that we in BC will have no choice but to throw our own targets out the window. Forget the laws. Forget the rhetoric. The science says it’s impossible. We will be throwing away the certainty of our own climate targets for the possibility of theirs.

If we are to walk away from leadership—if we are to turn our backs on our climate targets and ignore the laws we set for ourselves—what does that say about our resolve in the face of adversity?

In 2008 we boldly committed to address one of the greatest challenges of our time. In 2014, it would seem we have boldly committed to perpetuate it, if not accentuate it.

Just this past week John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, was in Indonesia where he described global warming as “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction”. He further stated, and I quote: “Terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: all challenges that know no borders,” and I quote again “The reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them.”

As Britain dealt with historical floods across its nation, The Guardian Newspaper celebrated Valentines day with a Front Page Story by Sir Nicholas Stern entitled: “Climate change is here now. It could lead to global conflict. Yet the politicians squabble.”

Floods in Calgary and Britain, record droughts in California and Vancouver Island, record breaking heat and fires in Australia, devastation in the Philippines from typhoon Haiyan and in New York from Hurricane Sandy. The list is growing and the problem is getting more and more serious.

And I reiterate: YET THE POLITICIANS SQUABBLE.

Look around this chamber and ask yourselves what you and your caucuses are doing to address this, the greatest challenge of our time. Are you cheerleaders for the fossil fuel industry and the BC LNG pipedream? Are you so busy playing the game of gotcha politics that you’ve lost touch with the reason why you are here?

Coming back to the LNG plan outlined in the throne speech, there is another issue. If we are to double down on LNG exports and consider them for their impact on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, what about our other exports that increase global greenhouse gas emissions? Will they be counted as well or will they be conveniently left out of the calculations?

Let me offer just one example: Thermal coal.

Right now BC exports 20 megatons of thermal coal each year. The vast majority of this coal is shipped in from the US and Alberta and does not contribute to BC jobs the way metallurgical coal does. Washington, Oregon and California—our partners in the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy—have so far sad ‘no’ to thermal coal exports. With their export limits in place, American producers are looking for new export ports and so over the next 2 years we will see a 20 megaton increase in thermal coal exports through BC. That’s a total of 40 megatons of thermal coal each year between the existing and proposed expansion of exports.

If we are to boast that LNG exports would be “the greatest single step we can take to fight climate change”—that they could decrease Chinese emissions by 90 megatons each year—then we must also consider how much our other exports increase global carbon emissions.

If we look at reliable, scientific estimates, the 40 megatons of thermal coal we will be exporting will add over 100 megatons of carbon pollution to our atmosphere each year. The fact is, while we could possibly reduce Chinese emissions by 90 megatons, we will certainly increase emissions from coal exports to 100 megatons. Forget 90 megatons in savings—we will have just increased net global emissions by 10 megatons from coal exports alone.

To be clear, I am not suggesting we ban coal exports or in any way limit our metallurgical coal industry. I am talking specifically about the expansion of thermal coal exports that originate outside our province. When those are factored in, the numbers just don’t add up.

I therefore stand today to introduce an amendment to the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

I do not introduce this amendment as a matter of confidence in the government. I introduce it as a contribution to the debate about the consistency of the government’s vision of an economy that does not unnecessarily burden future generations.

The current motion stands as:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session,”

To this, I would like to add the following amendment:

“and that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest issues facing our Province and that this government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is inconsistent with the current expansion of United States sourced thermal coal exports coming through British Columbia harbours, and therefore calls upon this government to follow the lead of our Pacific Coast Action Plan Partners, Washington, Oregon and California, and  explore all means by which the government may halt the expansion of thermal coal exports in British Columbia.”

For the government to claim credit for their LNG export emissions, the government would have to undergo a massive effort to systematically account for all emissions from exports, whether increasing or decreasing global emissions. If the government wants to persist with this approach to global emissions reductions, then a starting point would be to halt the increase in thermal coal exports. Anything short of this would be inconsistent and irresponsible.

The government could try and hide behind claims that coal exports and rail transport fall within federal jurisdiction, but the reality is that there is much that the province can do.

The vision laid out in this amendment could be incorporated into the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate Change and Energy within its mandate to Harmonize 2050 targets for greenhouse gas reductions and cooperate with national and sub-national governments around the world to press for an international agreement on climate change in 2015. Our partners in the Action Plan are already leading the way on thermal coal expansion. We could join them in their leadership.

Building a strong economy that meets the needs of today without sacrificing the welfare of future generations isn’t easy. It asks of us the audacity to find new ways to build our economy by investing in low-carbon sectors. It requires of us the resolve to meet our legislated targets, even in the face of adversity. It calls on us to be consistent, from one sector to the next, from 2008 through to 2050 and beyond.

Let us demonstrate that audacity, that resolve and that consistency here today. And let us take our next step together and begin with a conversation about thermal coal, before it’s too late. ”

The Vote