Today in the legislature I rose to speak to the budget. Every MLA is give 30 minutes to respond to budget. My staff and I’d prepared so much material that I barely got through half of what I had planned to address. But there will be more opportunities in the weeks ahead to outline why I will not support this budget.

Below is the text of my speech. I also append a video further down.

Text of My Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to this debate, particularly after the member for Comox Valley, who classified the world and this House as one of two sides: the world of optimism on that side and arguably, in his mind, the world of pessimism on this.

I’d like to quote Winston Churchill:

“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

I am an optimist. I understand what it means to be an optimist, but unfortunately, I don’t think Winston Churchill was thinking of this government when he came up with that quote.

In fact, there is another quote attributed to Winston Churchill more applicable to the statements that emanated from the opposite side, and the quote is this:

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

What you are going to hear from this side of the House is a truthful assessment of the Budget 2016, not one filled with rhetoric, not one filled with promises, not one filled with half truth, but one that looks at it carefully and points out what is good and what is not good without the hyperbolic, hysterical rhetoric, so common, emanating from those on the other side.

I rise in this debate puzzled by the direction this government is heading. Frankly, it has become clear to me that this government is really out of new ideas — completely out of new ideas, lost, lost their way, given that LNG is not playing out the way they thought it would be.

The budget speech we heard on Tuesday was high on self-praise but represents little in terms of fundamental change. We continue to chase markets we are not part of with LNG while bringing forward no clear plan to build on our strengths let alone the challenges we face.

While it was encouraging that this government incorporated some policy changes that British Columbians have been advocating for, for the most part, they represented halfway measures that do little to attack the underlying issues that are presenting challenges for so many British Columbians.

First let me discuss the issue of housing. To make good policy, you need good data. I was encouraged to read the government has adopted additional tools that will allow them to gather much-needed contextual information about the housing market.

The new requirement for property purchasers to identify their nationality is a step forward that I’ve been urging this government to take for two years.

Frankly, I wonder how they’re going to do it without actually bringing the private member’s bill, which is precisely the same as what is being proposed by government. I look forward to debating the private member’s bill that’s before the House as we speak.

I’m glad that government listened on this. Likewise, I was also pleased to see that bare trusts will now face more examination, and the government will have the data it needs to address this. Gathering more information about bare trustees is certainly better than ignoring the problem all together. I’d like to stress this: this loophole still remains open — open to exploitation.

To say that we need to gather information from scratch implies we have an entirely different market to that of Ontario. Ontario’s housing market in Toronto is just as hot as that in Vancouver, with speculation running amok. Yet in Ontario, they have a mechanism to track this and actually generate revenue to limit the amount of speculation occurring.

While that may largely be true, for example, that we need to gather information from scratch for efficiency’s sake, I do think we have a promising opportunity to learn from what has happened in Ontario and to act pre-emptively to close this loophole.

For example, Ontario has a similar property transfer tax system in place, but they have plugged the loophole and they did it very simply. All they did was apply the property transfer tax upon change in beneficial ownership, not just change in title registered at the land title office.

The wealthy offshore buyers can flip houses numerous times by simply registering the first purchase as a bare trust owned by a corporation and flip the corporation shares from owner to owner to owner without ever changing land title and without ever paying a penny of property transfer tax.

I know this is being done because I have spoken to developers. I have spoken to mortgage lenders, and I’ve spoken to those who are involved in the real estate industry.

This change could and should be done in British Columbia to ensure everyone is treated fairly. However enlightening information may be in its own right, it’s meaningless without appropriate action. We need to get moving on these issues, and government doesn’t seem to have a plan, like so many other things.

This also seems to be the case with the government’s change to the property transfer tax. Increasing property transfer tax rates to 3 percent on homes over $2 million is another adjustment that I agree with in principle. But with affordability as the top issue on the minds for so many people across the province, making it more expensive to flip luxury homes is a progressive step. There’s no question it’s a progressive step forward.

Unfortunately, this too could be rendered meaningless if the loopholes in our housing markets are ignored. In fact, it may be that the government loses taxes in the short term as more sellers engage in and exploit those loopholes to avoid the increase in taxes.

Furthermore, with the $750,000 property tax break for new homes, the government is incentivizing housing development while doing nothing to dampen speculation — again, failing to close the loopholes affecting the market right now.

Contrary to the minister’s dismissive comment that this is a Point Grey issue, the housing problem is affecting communities across British Columbia and it is greatly impacting our provincial economy. On my street alone, where I live in Gordon Head, a house sold. The sold sign came on when the house was listed. It was sold to foreign buyers. Two months later, the sold sign came on again, as the house was flipped. It was cash transactions in both cases. This is not a problem exclusive to Metro Vancouver. It’s a problem now emerging in the capital regional district and other markets in British Columbia.

The costs we are shouldering in society are not just economic, they’re social. The passionate, determined, young people we need to support our communities and lead them into the future are being priced out by people who can afford to buy houses and leave them empty.

Ever wonder why there’s a traffic jam on the Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver going north? It should make no sense, because people on the North Shore work, by and large, in Vancouver. The reason is because nobody who’s working in those homes — the electricians, the plumbers, the trades — are able to live in that region, and so they’re commuting from halfway across Vancouver across bridges. And the government’s response — rather than dealing with the problem, the affordability problem — is to start talking about building bigger roads and bigger bridges. Again, not addressing the problem, it’s avoiding the problem being dealt with and kicking the can down the road further.

The role of government is to take direct action and to direct the actions of citizens. We incentivize what we like, and we discourage that which we don’t. We need to close loopholes and disincentivize the preponderance of empty houses, because as it currently stands, the government is failing to do an adequate job of either. There’s a glaring market failure. The preponderance of vacant homes in Vancouver has a social cost attached to it. That externality needs to be internalized so that vacant owners pay the true cost of that vacant home.

The government’s response, rather than recognizing the market failure and internalizing externalities, incentivizes more development and further speculation. This is a government that is completely out of control and completely at a loss or understanding of fundamental market instruments. That does not deal with the imminent problem. It kicks the can down the road further, so to speak. The imminent crisis needs to be dealt with through the implementation of market instruments available to government. Those instruments alone will correct this market failure.

Frankly, the single most effective policy that government could do would be to implement a price, a levy or a tax on homes that are left vacant. This government is building the economy of Scottsdale in British Columbia as we speak. It’s an artificial economy, fuelled by speculation and requiring continued development and building of houses in order to sustain itself.

Government is misleading British Columbians by suggesting that we have a diversified economy. Our economy right now is being driven by wild speculation and offshore money coming into British Columbia to actually buy these homes, and developers building more — selling, flipping, buying, speculating.

There is only one end solution for that infinite growth in a finite system, and that will be a collapse, a collapse of pretty strong proportions that this government will start — as they have done with LNG — to blame on unforeseen global forces. Well, we can see it happening right now, and there’s nothing unforeseen about it. What is unforeseen is any will or any policy emanating from the government to actually address the key issues of today in British Columbia.

Putting up a levy on vacant homes will encourage more owners to lease their vacant homes, which in turn will put downward pressure on rent costs in Vancouver and elsewhere. The revenue generated from this levy could actually be used to pay the social costs arising from non-affordability within Metro Vancouver and emerging here in the capital regional district: the costs of the homeless, the enhanced judicial system process that is required to deal with the increasing homeless problem in our province. The reduction of services for mental health can be addressed. We can start to actually raise the living allowance, which hasn’t changed in I can’t even remember how many years.

One of the saddest moments in this House since I was elected in 2013 happened about 20 minutes ago when the member for Comox Valley stood and truly believed that somehow $11 a month is actually a great step forward, after seeing no increase in fees for years and years and years.

The people of British Columbia deserve better. They deserve a government that’s honest to them, a government that actually does not try to sell itself as something it’s not, a government that recognizes that there is a social problem out there and that $11 a month is not going to solve it. Frankly, the price of cauliflower has gone up $8, say, in about three months. Basically, what we’re saying is that you can almost meet the increase in your grocery bill, but not quite, with this $11 a month. Shameful, truly shameful that this was lauded as a sign of progress.

In summary, the government’s balanced budget increasingly is relying on revenue from an artificial, overinflated housing market. They are benefiting from the issues that are causing so many affordability concerns amongst British Columbians and taking no real concrete steps to address this. The government needs to address this market failure, and the 2016 budget represents another missed opportunity to do so.

Now to MSP. On MSP, the government has brought forward a small, half-step approach to making this fee a little bit more fair for the people of British Columbia. I commend them for taking that one small half-step. It may not be much, but at least we are moving in the right direction. Making children exempt from paying MSP premiums and increasing the assistance available are both positive changes to a fundamentally unfair system.

Despite the changes to MSP premiums announced on Tuesday, we still have a system that doesn’t work, however, for most British Columbians. To use the Premier’s words, as the opposition did so well earlier today in question period, it’s a system that is “antiquated…old, and the way people pay for it generally doesn’t make a whole ton of sense.” Those are the Premier’s words. I agree. The opposition agrees. But somehow the government doesn’t agree with itself. I’m not sure what’s going on.

Hundreds of thousands of people in this province are currently behind in their MSP payments. That’s a ton of bureaucracy, needlessly employed in enforcing an antiquated, old system. That’s what the Premier said. I agree. Bureaucracy — dare I say that’s red tape?

Shame if it is, because of course we know that the government doesn’t like red tape and in fact has gone so far that we now have red-tape-reduction day, making us truly a laughing stock across Canada. Every, single person that I have actually raised this to and mentioned that red-tape-reduction day is now on the same par as Terry Fox Day, Holocaust Memorial Day, Douglas Day, B.C. Day and Family Day looks at me and says: “What?” They couldn’t believe it. This government believes it, but it says whatever it takes to get through lunchtime.

The reality is, the biggest component of red tape in the entire sector of government is the administration of the MSP premium which the Premier, through her own words, says is antiquated, old and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Okay, let’s remove some red tape. No, they create more red tape, more thresholds, more exemptions, etc. Absolutely unbelievable.

Plus, when we delve into the details of this policy change, what we see is actually a tax hike. The people of British Columbia have spoken loud and clear about how they are having trouble with this tax, yet this government has raised the amount of money they take from it — a new $111 million in taxes, a head tax. That’s what it is — a head tax, which, after the premium assistance is accounted for, makes it an increase of $77 million in revenue. That’s $77 million as a head tax, because that’s what it is — a poll tax or a head tax, nothing else.

Who is paying for this new revenue? Well, a couple that earns a combined $45,000 or more a year will see their Medical Services Plan increased by $240 a year. Whoa, hang on. That’s more, a greater MSP premium. I thought it was going down.

Senior couples with a slightly higher income face the same increase. Yet when I was at the Monterey centre, when this issue was first brought to me almost a year and a half ago, the demographic that brought it to me were the seniors who were struggling on fixed income to actually pay it. Here, the government is listening. It’s listening to its corporate funders. It’s not listening to the people of British Columbia, because the group that can least afford it — those on fixed income — are getting a $240-a-year hit. That’s hardly fair. That’s not fair at all.

A couple with two children will pay $72 more a year. These are significant increases in medical premiums. Let’s be clear that a combined income of $45,000 is not that much in Metro Vancouver or greater Victoria.

A single adult who earns less than $42,000 is eligible for premium assistance, but a couple earning $3,000 more is facing an increase of $240 a year. This is yet another example of how this government does not understand simple fundamental market instruments. You incentivize that which you like. You use your market instruments to put a tax or disincentivize that which you don’t.

This introduction of the MSP program is incentivizing divorce in the province of British Columbia. It’s saying to couples: “You should not be couples, because if you get married” — this is families first — “or you become common law, we’re going to charge you $240 a year more.” Does that make sense? No it doesn’t. But that’s what this government is putting forward.

Let’s look at Ontario as a case example in how we could charge MSP differently. In Ontario, health care premiums are paid through personal income tax systems. Rather than a flat-rate levy, this approach avoids the regressive nature of the monthly premium as rates rise with income to a maximum annual level.

For example, as I’ve outlined for a couple of years now, in Ontario, the current maximum annual rate is set at $900 for taxable incomes of $200,600 and higher, with those individuals earning less than $20,000 paying no premiums at all.

The argument that we need to keep this tax separate from other taxation methods so that British Columbians know that health care is not free is ridiculous. British Columbians know that health care is not free. They know that building bridges and highways is not free. They know that education is not free. To treat them as if they don’t is disrespectful. It is disrespectful of the people of British Columbia.

They know that their taxes go towards the services that government provides. If the government still insists that British Columbians need to understand how much health care is costing our province, then there is a simple solution — a simple line on the income tax return, like that exists for EI and CPP, called health care premium, which is progressively calculated just like EI and CPP are. It would solve the problem. It would deal with the issue that unions have negotiated benefits because it would still pay for it. It would be done in a progressive instead of a regressive system, just like it was done in Ontario.

In fact, this was the method advocated for in the 2002 Senate report that recommended the federal premium to help pay for health care costs — the health care of Canadians. The federal role made a strong case that premiums constituted a visible and equitable means of supported health care spending, so long as they varied in proportion to income. It’s not me making it up. It’s Senate expert panels that are providing information in forming this policy.

Now let’s turn to new services. Another item in this budget that received considerable attention was the boost to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Now, without a doubt, I’m encouraged to see that the government seems to finally be paying attention to our most vulnerable — a topic that the official opposition has brought forward time and time and time again during question period.

It seems like they may have done more harm than good, unfortunately. For nine years, there’s been a freeze on the disability rate at $906 a month. At first glance, a $77 increase for disability assistance looks like a step in the right direction. If we take into consideration the loss of transportation subsidies, which in some cases amounts to $66 a month — the numbers were messed up in question period; I am assuming that tomorrow the minister will correct the numbers that she quoted out in question period — this budget represents an increase of only $11 a month — $11 a month — that the member for Comox Valley was so proud to tout to British Columbians in solving the social woes of those most unfortunate with disability in our society.

That’s hardly a success. In fact, with the increases in transportation in some areas going up — just look at the capital regional district, dramatic increases — this is actually a net loss, or will be a net loss, and government exempts itself from having to deal with the increasing costs of transportation. I am sure this was not their intention, but clearly this is not an outcome that will make life all that much better for the most vulnerable in B.C. In some cases, it will down the road make life a little more difficult.

On a more positive note, the $95 million set aside for wildfire protection, the $10 million for search and rescue plus the $55 million set aside for emergency preparedness and prevention initiatives are welcome news. Indeed, they’re among the only budget items I could find, although not attributed to, but that address one of the biggest threats to our province’s economy — climate change.

Let’s look at climate change. We are paying the cost of climate change in this province already. This past year, we saw record temperatures across our province. We saw drought precipitated by a lack of snow pack, and forest fires raged across our province. The January 2016 globally average temperature shattered the previous record by 0.16 degrees and was more than a full degree Celsius above the 20th-century average.

In B.C., we simply stand by and watch happen and go to Paris and say: “Look, we are leaders.” Others call you leaders; you don’t call yourself leaders. In British Columbia, we are not leaders on the mitigation of climate change. We were leaders, but that is long past.

I brought forward a motion, for example, to discuss a matter of urgent public importance last summer. At issue was whether we as legislators were acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change in our province. Unfortunately, my motion went nowhere.

Directing the actions of society through the fiscal instruments available to government is one of the most powerful tools we have. But here in 2016, we have a budget that barely mentions the biggest problem we face as a global society. We heard from the minister that “Budget 2016 continues to build on B.C.’s leadership in clean technology and climate action. Climate change is a global issue, and the Premier has made it clear that B.C. will remain a climate action leader. And we have been able to move forward with that leadership on climate change while also growing our economy” was another quote.

Yet in the budget itself, there is scant mention of climate change. And the funding put aside doesn’t so much build on B.C.’s leadership in clean tech, as they said, but only supports one policy: the continuation of their existing electric vehicle program. That’s it. No more. Climate leadership, to this government, means continuation of an electric vehicle incentive. Nothing more. Hardly going to help the majority of our society.

Admittedly, I did benefit from that. I did get an electric vehicle. But there are many who this will not benefit. And I wonder how many in government have actually taken this incentive and got an electric vehicle. Probably a small number. Very small number. I’d guess zero.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s not true? So that’s good. I’d like to have a list of all government MLAs who own an electric vehicle come my way, and I’d be happy to praise them publicly. But we’ll see.

The construction of Site C dam has put the final nail in the coffin of the clean-tech sector in British Columbia. Shocking. The Canadian Wind Energy Association has just left B.C., citing the existence of greener pastures elsewhere. Well, let me tell you. There will be greener pastures here in just a little more than a year, when this government is sitting on this side of the bench and the rest of us are sitting on that side of the bench.

A $1 billion investment on Vancouver Island involving a partnership between EDP Renewables…. This isn’t pipedream stuff. This is real investment, not of taxpayer money but of industrial money, on Vancouver Island through partnership between EDP Renewables. First Nations and TimberWest,. It’s gone. They’ve walked from B.C. because of a lack of leadership by this government. Frankly, that’s reckless economics, in my view. It’s reckless mismanagement of our economic system.

British Columbians are fed up with this rhetoric. World leaders of this. World leaders of that. We’ll all be happy and wealthy and wise, blah, blah, blah. That’s what we’re hearing. But enough is enough. This government is out of ideas.

They’ve misled British Columbians about the prospects of LNG. They look out for their vested interests, and they say whatever it takes to get through lunch, whatever it takes to get to dinner, then whatever it takes to get through a day and on and on. They say whatever it is in the desperate hope that British Columbians are not paying attention. But they are.

The carbon tax remains flat, and leadership on climate change mitigation is largely absent. As I’ve heard nothing about this, I look forward to, hopefully, hearing something in the fall, where the government once more kicks another file down the road.

Government has ignored the agriculture sector until just recently, just like they ignored the tech sector until last August, when four civil servants were tasked to come up with a conference. That’s the government’s idea: “Let’s have a conference on agriculture. That’s leadership.” But we do have a leadership opportunity here in B.C. in the knowledge economy of the 21st century.

I was recently up in Prince George and saw firsthand how the tech industry could actually partner with our resource sector to take our strategic advantage and build our economy. Why is this government not investing $6 million to provide broadband redundancy to Prince George to allow Prince George to take advantage of its cooler climate to become a tech hub and bring the resource and tech sectors together, to be the home for data distribution centres like Google wants to be?

Six million dollars would be the biggest economic drive for that region, with the introduction of broadband redundancy, that that region has seen for decades.

Yet this government would rather spend $8 billion on a project for energy that’s not necessary because there’s no LNG and Alberta has said no. That’s their view of economics. What you got? My six million bucks is my view of economic prosperity.

Now let’s talk about the biggest item by far in this budget, an item with an $8.7 billion price tag. That’s kind of there in one line. The Premier recently stated that she wanted to move this project past the point of no return — another irresponsible statement by this Premier. Yet we have no LNG industry, and just today we hear from First Nations in the Peace region that they will soon be in court, as the injunction is coming to play out as B.C. Hydro tries to stop protesters.

I have so much more I could talk about, but I do see we’re on the green light. I could talk about LNG. I would love to talk about the prosperity fund. I have probably another half-hour speech, and I’m looking forward to being able to do that. Probably, I should be making an amendment right now to the budget speech so that I could actually talk about this stuff. But let me just say that what we should be doing in British Columbia is building on our strengths. We should be demonstrating leadership….

Some Hon. Members: More. More.

A. Weaver: If you would like more, members opposite….

Hon. Speaker, with your permission, I’ll speak for another half-hour. Would that be possible? Maybe I’ll give away too many ideas.

Finally, starting to take action, real action on the issues of affordability, directing our economy for the future prosperity rather than political talking points and making B.C. a leader on the issues of our time is what I had hoped this budget might do. Unfortunately, in my view, while there’s a lot of popular language in this, it’s found wanting on many, many points. Probably, the most cynical aspect of this budget is the prosperity fund, the $100 million prosperity fund, which, when you peel it down, is actually only a $25 million fund. And it’s a $25 million fund of taxpayer money.

Video of My Speech

This afternoon in the legislature I delivered my response to the Speech from the Throne. I hope you’ll find it of interest to read the text (or watch the video) of my speech where I look at unfulfilled promise after unfulfilled promise that this government has made over the last three years.

Text of My Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in a debate that I suspect, honestly, will be going on for next year and a half — a debate that is about the direction the province is going; a debate about what the future could look like for British Columbia; a debate that I’m eager to participate in.

But this throne speech did not give us the ability to debate because there were virtually no ideas. Gone is the over-the-top rhetoric about LNG that has so defined this government’s approach. Replacing it, however, is a familiar drum beat that I remember hearing in 2012 before the last election. The world is a scary place. Only this government has prevented complete collapse.

And yet, to make such a claim would defy logic, given this government’s record over the last four years. I remember sitting here bright eyed in 2013, having just been elected, and listening to a throne speech that stated the government would “bring the liquefied natural gas opportunity home, creating tens of thousands of new jobs and leading to the establishment of the B.C. prosperity fund, which will be protected by law to eliminate our debt.”

Three years later, this is clearly an empty promise, an unfulfilled vision that was never based in reality, a history that this government is quick to forget. British Columbians are hardly going to feel assured that this government has a concrete plan, given the direction indicated by the Speech from the Throne.

The undercurrent of their retreat away from their highly rhetorical promises of 2013 is the idea that there was no way the government could possibly have known that LNG would be delayed. “Unforeseen global conditions are posing new challenges,” Tuesday’s speech read.

But these challenges, I would argue, were largely foreseeable, of course. For the past few years, experts from a variety of fields have been outlining just how unlikely it would be for this industry to come to British Columbia as promised.

Since 2012, I’ve been saying that this was nothing but a pipe dream. Since 2012, nothing has happened in this industry, because the world is oversupplied in natural gas. China now has excess gas. It is a seller on the international marketplace. And the price of future contracts would mean that, in British Columbia, we would literally have to pay people to take our natural gas.

Finally, Iran, the world’s largest reserve of natural gas — almost 20 times that of all Canada combined — has recently had sanctions lifted.

Is there anyone out there who still believes anything this government has to say when it talks about LNG? I think it’s important for us to look at just how much was promised in order to understand why the government’s refrain that “success is not for quitters” is not simply, yet again, empty rhetoric. But not only that. It’s a dangerous approach to the management of public resources.

In 2011, the Premier said that she planned to take an “aggressive approach to the development of the natural gas sector,” and she was confident that British Columbia could “create a prosperous LNG industry that would bring local jobs to our communities and deliver important dollars into our economy.”

Her office predicted that the Kitimat liquefied natural gas plant would be “operational by 2015.” Nothing much happening in Kitimat in the area of LNG.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: And, yes, I have been to Kitimat, and I have toured the Rio Tinto Alcan plan, and there is a lot going on there, certainly.

But, in fact, there is no LNG development going on in Kitimat. In fact, the pipeline that was being processed there has simply had construction stop, and yet again and again, final investment decisions are kicked down…. The can is kicked down the road for years to come.

The NDP, citing jobs for under-employment, communities and a “better market in Asia,” were quick to support the development of an LNG industry, initially. I will say, of course, that they have seen the light, and they too recognize the empty promises, that this government let British Columbians down.

I suspect, frankly, that “if we have a facility in Kitimat and markets in Asia, then the activity in the northeast is going to continue to be hot rather than flat,” said the Leader of the Opposition in 2011. “The risk to our coastline from LNG is insignificant. The benefit to British Columbians is quite significant,” he added a few days later

The B.C. Liberals continue pushing their LNG — and until recently, supported by the NDP. In 2012, for example, the NDP said they were comfortable with fracking and supported increasing B.C.’s greenhouse gases in the name of reducing those in Asia. “We have been fracking in British Columbia for a long, long time, decades in fact.”

In fact, that’s true. Vertical fracking has been going on in British Columbia for many decades but not horizontal fracking. Horizontal drilling is a relatively new construct both in British Columbia and the rest of the world, which is one of the reasons that there is no market for B.C. gas, because everyone in the world is using horizontal fracking now — not just British Columbia.

In 2013, the Premier’s “aggressive approach” morphed into her entire re-election strategy, one based solely on the LNG industry. Massive promises were made to British Columbians: a debt-free B.C. by the end of 2020s, a $100 billion prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs, elimination of the provincial sales tax, $4.3 billion in extra government revenue by 2020, $1 trillion in the new economic activity. The list went on and on. To quote again…. “This opportunity is very real for all the people of our province,” she said.

In 2014, this chamber once again heard that “LNG was a once in a lifetime opportunity to create 100,000 new jobs and a prosperity fund to eliminate the provincial debt.” Despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, we heard that this LNG fiction was the “greatest single step to fight climate change.” That’s almost a laughable quote.

As a climate scientist, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, and I spoke against the idea. Climate leadership aside, which this government is so sorely lacking, it was clear that the economics simply weren’t there to support an LNG industry on the scale of what was promised, and a number of energy analysts were voicing similar concerns. Nonetheless, onwards we go.

The Premier told us that her “plan to foster a competitive LNG industry was showing results.” She was so confident in her vision that by April 30 of 2014, she stated that her government was meeting with key investors to “take the last crucial steps towards final decisions.”

By the end of the year, her plan was, by any account, looking a little iffy. The deal with Petronas wasn’t going so well, despite the Premier’s assurance that they were “absolutely on schedule” and that they were “going to get there on the timeline that they had set.”

The 7 percent tax that was originally proposed had been cut in half. The imminent deals that were just around the corner were dwindling in number. I stated in this House that this was an industry of “high stakes promises and low stakes delivery.” I asked the government repeatedly about their backup plan, if the predicted LNG windfall did not materialize.

The response from the hon. Minister of Natural Gas was that they “know they will be successful on this file.” No backup plan. Not necessary. None.

Hon. T. Lake: Four balanced budgets. That’s a pretty good backup plan.

A. Weaver: And the balanced budgets are being done, as the Minister of Health is pointing out, on the backs of individual British Columbians through things like speculation in the real estate industry and medical service premium increases, which…. As we saw today, 65,712 British Columbians from around the province signed a petition saying: “Stop this.”

The government will listen or not listen, at their peril, because these 65, 712 voters will be there in 2017 to send this government a message, bringing ten or 12 folk along with each and every one of them.

Come 2015, the government was still touting the LNG promises, albeit those promises had diminished significantly. The price of oil had fallen to the floor, while the government looked the other way and continued to insist that LNG was a “generational opportunity.”

By this point, however, the government had gone quiet on the big-ticket promises, and our Premier’s timeline had changed. Having an LNG plant operational by 2015 clearly wasn’t happening. But she insisted now that they were on target to have “three projects by 2020 up and running.” That’s a bit like kicking the can down past the next election — desperate, absolutely desperate, to try to get one — not two, but one —final investment decision.

This government had a rare, unusual summer session for the sole purpose of legislating an agreement that ultimately amounted to a sellout of our resource — a desperate attempt to land an industry one final investment deal. That deal was and remains environmentally reckless, fiscally foolhardy and socially irresponsible.

It is undoing all of our climate leadership, as recently emphasized by a Canadian report on the environmental assessment in the area. Admitting what we already knew by the end of 2015, the Premier said: “Timelines were probably going to be different” than what she promised.

Running parallel to the government’s over-the-top statements on LNG was a continued advancement of the Site C dam. The massive undertaking is perhaps the clearest example of how irresponsible this government is with public resources. The whole reason for building Site C, as the Premier stated in 2013, was because it was needed “for powering up these huge LNG facilities.” Whoops. What LNG facilities?

This project was originally priced at $6.6 billion in 2010, $7.9 billion in 2011, and as of 2014, the estimate was set at $8.8 billion. I’m willing to stake a large bet today that it’ll come in around $13 billion when all is said and done, and this will be an example of public subsidy for an industry that is not going to come to B.C. anytime soon — all to power these LNG facilities that we’re not going to have, with none appearing to be close.

Now, we have with this apparent excess energy, whose production has crippled the clean energy sector in British Columbia, we hear that Site C may help to power Alberta. Well, there’s a new idea, and we’ll put more public money subsidizing a transmission line to allow us to do so. To me, this sounds like a desperate attempt to salvage a bad idea that anybody outside of government’s inner circles would have realized was not timely and not cost-effective and irresponsible. A bad idea that happened to support another bad idea.

Here is the critical point. We have not seen one single investment decision in five years of political rhetoric about how promising the LNG sector is for our province — not a single investment decision to help fund all those big election promises, not a single investment decision, period.

I want to return to this line we heard on Tuesday — “that success is not for quitters.” That success demands “steadfast attention.” I would suggest that success is knowing when to stop throwing good money after bad ideas and having the courage to admit that you were wrong — that is, after all, what a fiscally responsible government would do. That is what a fiscally responsible Green government would do.

Anybody who has ever been in the stock market knows, you don’t double down chasing a stock. Just ask anybody who invested in Nortel back in the day when it went from over $100 to pennies and change.

Despite the clear lack of progress in developing an LNG record, the Minister of Natural Gas stated last month that those who question this abysmal track record are “pessimists, short-sighted, reluctant to admit that LNG is making progress and securing long-term prosperity for all of us.”

Indeed, rather than switching tracks, they are switching to being derogatory and defensive of their failed strategy, while superficially referencing a diversified economy they have done little, if anything, to support. The Premier herself said the world is being divided in two: the people that will “say no to everything” and the people who would “want to find a way to get to yes.” I’m not sure what science the forces of no bring together up there, except that it’s not really about the science, it’s not really about the fish, it’s just about trying to say no. It’s about fear of change. It’s about fear of the future. It’s about derogatory statements like this Premier is making — a complete and utter lack of understanding of the fundamental issues facing British Columbians that she would have the gall to say that.

Is there any reason why voter turnout in recent by-elections was only 20 percent? The people of British Columbia are fed up with this political rhetoric. They will vote for change in the future, but they will vote for change like the federal government voted for change, like the American Republicans and Democrats are voting for change in their leadership, they will vote for change to get this government out of power. It has been in far too long. It’s sending the signals to British Columbians that they do not want to hear.

The arrogance of that statement is outstanding. There are very good scientific reasons to not support the LNG pipe dream of the government, not the least of which is the fact that pursuing the LNG strategy will throw our climate leadership out of the window. Plain and simple. You can’t argue it the other way.

Indeed, the continued rhetoric on LNG isn’t really about the reality of LNG in this province. It’s about trying to convince us that LNG promises are going to materialize, if we just trust government. Heard that before? It’s about fear of British Columbians actually remembering what they were promised and realizing it’s not what was delivered. It’s about a fear of losing the next election.

The Minister of Natural Gas Development once told me that my opposition to his LNG pipedream would leave me eating my words, just as the Minister of Advanced Education said today. Well, it hasn’t happened yet. I have to admit I’m getting hungry for real government leadership in this province. Furthermore, I must confess my confusion about how this government feels it can insinuate that Alberta is not an example of how to run a province, while at the same time being entirely focused on developing a carbon-based commodity market economy in the same low-price environment. It’s precisely that that’s hurting Alberta.

For three years, we’ve had a one-issue Premier, caught up in the political promises she had to make to win the last election. We’ve had a supportive opposition up until recently. We have heard plenty of promises, and they have rarely been based in reality. This is an approach to government that is, sadly, being repeated on a number of fronts.

For example, let’s take a look at the B.C. jobs plan, which promised thousands of new jobs and is now in its fifth year. It has done nothing to fuel job growth. In fact, the employment rate in B.C. has dropped, hon. Minister of Health. The employment rate in B.C. has dropped since this incarnation of the B.C. Liberals took office. The employment rate has dropped since the B.C. Liberals took office, despite their B.C. jobs plan. As Stats Canada reported this past December, B.C.’s unemployment rate has risen to its highest level since December ’13. The pattern of job losses in our province is troubling, especially when considered next to skyrocketing housing prices.

Again, mirroring the government’s outlandish LNG promises, the B.C. Liberals have repeatedly vowed that every British Columbian would have a family doctor by 2015. There’s another promise. Unfortunately, 2015 has come and gone, and there are an incredible number of people still in need of a family doctor. In fact, here’s another statistic. Fewer British Columbians have a regular doctor now than before the government made these lofty promises. Right now in British Columbia, it’s estimated that over 200,000 people are still actively looking for a family doctor.

The minister has gone quiet on that one. I wish he’d actually look at the statistics there and fulfil the promises his government made and sent in the wrong direction. Given this government’s complicated history with doctor shortages, however, what I find most concerning about the B.C. Liberals’ promise to provide every British Columbian with a family physician is not that they have failed. One only has to look back at the struggles Canada has, as a country, in maintaining the appropriate numbers of GPs to know that B.C.’s doctor shortage was never something that could have been fixed in two years.

What is most concerning is that British Columbians were repeatedly misled about what could be realistically achieved. British Columbians deserve better. They deserve real politics. They deserve real statements. They deserve statements in government that are grounded in reality, not political rhetoric that has no hope to ever transpire, simply because the government is concerned about winning, winning at all costs.

Now, I would ask all members of the government opposite to take a look and read the comments of the previous member, the member from the White Rock area, and what he was actually talking about there — talking about coaches, talking about winning. It’s pretty clear to me that that speech said a lot about this government and its approach to winning at all costs — saying whatever it takes to get through lunch, saying whatever it takes them to get through dinner, going into rope-a-dope to pretend issues don’t exist.

We’re beginning to see a pattern emerge with this government, whether it be promises of 100,000 jobs, a debt-free B.C., unrealistic job growth, a GP for every British Columbian, unicorns in the backyards for all kids by the age of 20. The government is long on rhetoric and short on the leadership required to truly make things better for British Columbians. Real leadership is desperately needed in this province.

Only when this government is honest with British Columbians about our strengths and weaknesses can it bring forward a real vision that positions British Columbia as a leader in the 21st-century economy. Such a vision starts by being clear about what our real strengths are as a province — our people, our place and our resources.

British Columbians are among the best educated in the world. Our high school students are consistently ranked near the top of global comparisons. The OECD program for international student assessment identifies B.C. as continually ranking at the very top in science, mathematics and reading.

The strengths go beyond academic comparisons. Travelling around this province for the past three years, I’ve found the same thing everywhere I’ve gone: British Columbians who succeed by bringing innovation into their work. Small and family-owned businesses are the heart of innovation. They know that the market is competitive, yet they are finding ways to succeed. In many cases, in most cases, this is despite the lack of government support, not because of it.

We have such an opportunity in B.C., the opportunity to grow our economy and sunrise industries like the tech sector and the renewable energy sector. These are rapidly growing economic sectors that we need to nurture in our province.

I recently attended the B.C. Tech Summit in Vancouver, kind of an afterthought by the B.C. government in August of last year.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I do know about the B.C. Tech Summit. I know that it was only thought of as a last-minute thing in August of last year, and staff were tasked to get it done. This is not a government that has put any long-term effort into some particular issue.

When I attended that, I had a chance to sit down with numerous entrepreneurs who are working in the creative community. I was able to hear firsthand their views on the challenges and opportunities faced by their industry. This is exactly the type of sector that has been largely neglected for the past three years by a government fixated on a windfall.

We have another: the agricultural sector. Government’s response? “Let’s have another conference on this.” Rather than nurturing this industry….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: First conference on this. Thank you to the member for Saanich South.

Everyone I have met with talked about the physical draw of our province.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I’m so glad that I’m working up some of the ministers opposite. It’s clear that I’m actually hitting a nerve there with some truth, which is getting them to be a little upset.

Everyone I met with talked about the physical draw of our province…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: …as one of the main reasons they remain here. Over the generations, the beauty of this province has attracted talent and investment from across Canada and, indeed, the world. The reason is simple. People want to live here. They want to take advantage of the lifestyle opportunities that exist. People move here and they stay here to be active and surrounded by unparalleled natural beauty.

Our province attracts and retains people who believe in creating a better society. We also have the natural resources that position us to be a leader in the clean tech and resource technology sectors. Our opportunity is more than just exporting physical goods. We should be exporting our best practices and cutting-edge technologies. Unfortunately, our government is no longer spearheading those values. We are not the climate leaders we once were. Instead, we are promoting fossil fuel development.

The government is subsidizing the destruction of ancient forests that should be saved. Other ecosystems are so poorly managed that we have to cull one species in the name of saving another, bringing B.C. into global disrepute. Wild salmon stocks are falling in many regions, while the B.C. government ignores the province’s role in their protection and dismisses the vital importance of these fish in sustaining the environment and First Nations culture. Instead of addressing these issues honestly and head on, we see a government kicking the can of responsibility down a never-ending road.

The government consistently says that they are world leading. They say it because they know British Columbians want to be world leading. We want to be ahead and modern. Simply proclaiming that something is world leading does not make it so. You cannot bestow such a title on yourself. Only with the hard work of actual leadership and vision does such recognition come from abroad. That leadership is lacking.

This is what I had heard from the tech entrepreneurs who dream of a new creative industry in this province and who believe in the potential for British Columbia. They want to live here. While they were encouraged that government is finally paying attention, as of August of last year, to what could be a powerhouse industry in the province, the challenges they face are the same that all British Columbians are facing.

Affordability. It’s hard to tell if this government merely took its eye off the ball with the crisis of affordability in the Lower Mainland. They do seem to have turned hyping an industry that they politically chained themselves to into a full-time job. I get that. Either way, this is one of the fundamental challenges our province must come to terms with if we are to create an environment that fosters the growth of resilient local businesses in the creative economy.

The government has ignored the low-hanging fruit available to solve some of the housing affordability issues, such as closing the bare trust loophole or ensuring that it has the data to make evidence-based decisions. Similarly to LNG, this government has ignored all the warning signs and expert advice along the way. That is not looking out for young families. That is not showing leadership. Frankly, that’s like standing as a deer in the road looking at the headlights of the car as the economy comes and crashes down on you.

Grounded in the housing affordability crisis is a strong sense that fairness is fundamentally lacking in our province’s approach. Vancouver is a city of people from all walks of life, but this government’s policies risk hollowing out that region by supporting the speculative industry rather than small business owners who give this city its heartbeat.

Making life affordable and fair for British Columbians means MSP premiums need to be eliminated. Why is B.C. the only province that perpetuates a fundamentally unfair system to help pay our health care services?

In our current system, someone making $30,000 a year pays the same premium as someone making $3 million a year. This unjust measure has been carried out year after year in an attempt for the government to show that they have lower taxes. But to lower taxes and then create specific fees that disproportionately affect the lower-income bracket to pay for health care services is hardly fair, and British Columbians are noticing.

In fact, it was my constituents who brought this concern to me. I visited a local seniors centre home to learn from my constituents what challenges they were facing. With fixed incomes, the almost annual increase in MSP rates has acted like a shadow tax taking a greater and greater share of their income — this from the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. And let me tell you, it is not one of the least-well-off ridings in the province of British Columbia.

The more I looked into this, the clearer it was that MSP premiums needed reform in the province. We’re the only jurisdiction that hasn’t found a progressive way to levy health care costs. We need to follow the step Ontario has taken and roll MSP premiums into our income taxes. There’s no cost increase here. It takes a shadow tax this government charges in fees, a head tax, and instead replaces it with a graduated payment on your income tax return, just like CPP and EI.

Reforming MSP premiums — not tweaking it slightly, to pretend that you care — is what real government leadership looks like. It’s a commitment to making the lives of British Columbians better.

Listening to the problems affecting those who live in this province is part of good governance. But when the people of Shawinigan Lake have voiced strong and valid opposition to a project, the government has ignored them. When First Nations oppose a project in their own territory, they are dismissed as the forces of no. This is not collaborative governance. This is not listening. It’s certainly not about reconciliation. This is not what British Columbians expect from their government.

The throne speech specifically states: “Getting to yes on economic development does not mean cutting corners or bowing to external pressure.” I’m wondering right now what the residents of Shawnigan Lake think about this. I’m wondering what First Nations think about this. And I’m wondering if First Nations believe this government is sincere when not once but twice the throne speech uses the possessive “our” to describe First Nations. Our First Nations — unbelievable coming from a government that suggests that it cares about the importance of listening to First Nations in British Columbia.

Our province is blessed with a mixture of human and natural resources that, with real leadership and deliberate action, are poised to take off. With the right policies and measures in place, combined with the right approach, we can have a cutting-edge modern economy while ensuring a just society. This is what building on our strengths rather than chasing political promises can bring us.

By leveraging our renewable energy sector — which, sadly, is hurting right now because of the irresponsible government decision on Site C, burdening future generations with public debt to provide power at below market cost to an industry that will never transpire here — our critical natural resource sectors of forestry, mining, aquaculture and agriculture have the potential to join forces with the tech sector and create new, innovative ways to sustainably harvest our resources at greater value than before.

Unfortunately, this vision cannot flourish if government remains tied to the political promises it made four years ago. As their previous dream of an LNG windfall hits the hard brick wall of reality, the government now seems directionless. Yes, they are taking a few commonsense steps to address a small number of real crises facing British Columbia, but they are ignoring the vast potential of what this province and its people can do. With this approach, they are saying no to leadership. They are saying no to a prosperous future for British Columbia and no to what B.C. could be.

With heads in the sand, it would appear that the forces of no are not just on this side of the House. They are, frankly, on the other side of the House. With that, I thank you, hon. Speaker, for your time and will say to you that I will not be supporting this throne speech in the House.

Video of My Speech

BC’s Agricultural Economy

Many of us take for granted the importance of agriculture in the BC economy. When combined with our seafood and food and beverage manufacturing, this so-called agrifoods sector contributes 1.9% of our provincial GDP.

When you look at farm cash receipts (the money received from the sale of agricultural commodities plus any direct program payments made to support or subsidize the agriculture sector), a whopping  $2.8 billion flowed into the BC economy in 2013. According to statistics compiled by BC’s Ministry of Agriculture,

“Total farm cash receipts from the sale of crops, including grains, oilseeds, tree fruits, berries, grapes, field and greenhouse vegetables, floriculture, nursery, forage and other crops, amounted to nearly $1.4 billion in 2013, up 2.7 per cent over 2012 and up 12 per cent over the previous five year average. Total livestock receipts, from the sale of cattle, hogs, poultry, eggs, dairy, honey and other animals and animal products, amounted to more than $1.4 billion, up one per cent over 2012 and up eight per cent over the previous five year average.“

British Columbia also exports its agricultural products around the world. In 2013, agricultural exports amounted to $1.8 billion. Our top five export markets are: 1) United States [76%]; 2) China [4%]; 3) Japan [4%]; 4) Taiwan [2%]; 5) Hong Kong [2%].

What’s more, there were 19,759 farms in British Columbia in 2011, the last year for which census data are available, with 98 % of them being family-controlled farms and with over 54% of their farm operators being 55 years of age or older.

A conversation with Richard Bullock

British Columbia is broken up into eight agricultural regions and last week I had the distinct pleasure of touring around the Okanagan region to meet with local civic leaders and business owners to get a sense of the opportunities and challenges facing the Okanagan.

The Okanagan, has long been known for its tree fruit and grape production (and hence its wine industry), so what better place to start the tour than a meeting in Kelowna with, and at the family farm of, Richard Bullock, the past Chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. As the former president of the BC Fruit Growers’ Association, BC Tree Fruits Ltd., and Sun-Rype Products Ltd., and as a former Director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and Chair of the British Columbia Farm Industry Review Board, Mr. Bullock is certainly a wealth of information. He provided valuable advice concerning the need for Agricultural policies to be focused on the regional scale that reflect both the type and scale of producer. We also explored the importance of ensuring that water infrastructure, including reservoirs, keep pace with agricultural development as well as means and ways that smaller Okanagan tree fruit growers can compete against large-scale grow operations in other jurisdictions, such as Washington State.

Mr. Bullock was extremely bullish on the agricultural industry in BC stating that he had “never seen the excitement in agriculture before in the last 10 to 15 years”.  The numbers back up his sentiments. Agriculture exports increased by 12% in 2014 to $2 billion.

As I noted above, one of the challenges for Okanagan tree fruit growers is keeping fruit prices competitive with the larger growers in the United States and elsewhere. While the low Canadian dollar will surely provide a windfall for BC growers, other local farms have found innovative ways of ensuring that their business is resilient to market fluctuations. One of them, and one that I had the distinct honour of touring, is Davison Orchards Country Village in Vernon.

Davison Orchards Country Village

Davison Orchards has been in the Davison family since 1933 and it is now operated by Tom and Tamra Davison (the 3^rd generation). Their children (Lance and Laura – the 4^th generation) and Tom’s parents (Bob and Dora – the 2^nd generation) all work on the farm. Davison orchards offers everything: producing food; capitalizing on tourism opportunities; selling produce and value-added food products (pies, jams etc.) directly to the consumer; offering a location to host private events. What’s more, their on-site café redefines what it means to live on a 100-mile diet as many of the menu items come directly from their farm.

The Davison family is committed to the long-term sustainability of their land and their goal “is to produce fresh, high quality fruit and vegetables in a safe, sustainable and environmentally sensitive manner.” Several hundred thousand people a year visit the Davison orchards which employs upwards of 100 people during the May 1-October 31 season. Everything on the property is sold directly to consumers and the family also supports other farmers in the area by buying their produce and products and subsequently retailing them at their location.

I was extraordinarily impressed at the innovation and creativity exhibited by Tom and Tamra, who gave me the tour of their property. They outlined how people move around from job to job to ensure they can offer stable employment opportunities. For example, the baker becomes the jam maker as the need arises. They also explained to me that it was tough for a small, ~100 acre orchard, to compete in the apple sector when over 100 million 18 kg boxes of apples are picked a year in Washington State just south of the border. But the remaining 1/3 acre of apples left in their orchard certainly allows them to offer visitors first-rate home-baked apple pies.

Davison Orchards has become one of the most visited tourist attractions in the area. In fact, Trip Advisor presently lists them as #1 of 35 things to do in Vernon based on 269 reviews earning them a Certificate of Excellence. And their Facebook page is continually updated with what’s in season, ongoing activities and interesting stories about the workings of the orchard.

Davison orchards has figured out how to thrive through innovation. They’ve accomplished this by not only producing fresh and value added food products that they sell on site, but also through recognizing the tremendous opportunities in the tourism sector. The family-friendly atmosphere they have created means that there are fun things to do for everyone in a family — young and old. It’s a wonderful example of success in the agriculture industry.

Summerhill Pyramid Winery

I was also delighted to have the opportunity to be taken around Summerhill Pyramid Winery by its CEO, Ezra Cipes. This allowed me to learn more about the Okanagan’s thriving wine industry.

Summerhill Pyramid Winery is quite unique. It was Canada’s largest organic wine producer and BC’s first winery to receive (in 2012) Demeter Biodynamic certification. Established in 1991 on land purchased in 1986 by Ezra’s parents Stephen and Wendy Cipes, Summerhill comprises eighty acres of land of which only forty are planted with grapes. As part of the Demeter certification, twenty acres of the Summerhill property were placed under a restrictive covenant with The Land Conservancy of BC to ensure that biodiversity and natural habitat were protected. An additional twenty acres comprise meadows and composting areas.

Winemaker Eric von Krosigk co-founded Summerhill in 1991 with the Cipes. He left temporarily in 1994 once the winery was up and running and rejoined Summerhill again in 2006. Ezra took over the day-to-day operations of Summerhill in 2008 and a year later, Summerhill Pyramid Winery was named Canadian Wine Producer of the Year at the International Wine and Competition in London, England. Today, Summerhill produces around 30,000 cases of wine a year, supports another 200 acres of other family-owned vineyards by buying their grapes, and supports around 40 full time employees. In 2014, they wrote paychecks for 270 people.

Like Davison Orchards, Summerhill has recognized the incredible opportunities in tourism and through offering value-added services (a restaurant and a location for wedding receptions). Fully 55% of Summerhill’s wine is sold on-site with 2,000 cases passing through their restaurant and wedding reception operations.

Summerhill takes tourism seriously. When we arrived at Summerhill Pyramid Winery last Tuesday, the parking lot was full and a bus load of Asian tourists were admiring the beautiful views of Lake Okanagan. They have fully restored a cabin used by one of the original settlers to the area and built a replica of a scared earth First Nation house nearby (unfortunately this was being renovated when we visited). In addition, a nature/historical walk was being prepared through their property.

It should be no surprise to find out that Summerhill also received a Certificate of Excellence from Trip Advisor. But of course, and most importantly, the wine was exceptional. In the end I bought a bottle of 1998 Cipes Ariel after sampling it at the winery. The Vancouver Sun has described this as “one of the finest sparkling wines ever made in British Columbia” and I can certainly attest to it being perhaps the finest I have ever tasted.

Summary

Echoing the words of Richard Bullock, it’s an incredibly exciting time for agriculture in British Columbia. We have enormous potential to continue to grow our agricultural sector in the years ahead both through the direct production of food and, as demonstrated by the two successful examples of innovative and creativity that I highlight above, through developing and offering value added food products and services (including tourism). But as the climate continues to warm as a direct consequence of increased atmospheric loading of greenhouse gases, we have to be careful to ensure that this industry has the capacity to adapt to the changing climate. As this past summer has demonstrated, a warming climate has many potential benefits for British Columbia’s agricultural sector in the short term but, without adequate access to freshwater for irrigation, trouble looms ahead.

Global warming will bring a water storage, not a water shortage problem. Overall precipitation will increase, but it will come in fewer, more extreme events, interspersed between longer periods of little or no precipitation. There will be an increased risk of flooding. The precipitation will be skewed to the winter, with a greater likelihood of rain instead of snow as the century progresses. And summer drought will become more common. There will be lots of water around, but it will come at times when it’s not needed and not at times when it is needed. But with proper foresight, adaptive planning and reservoir management, British Columbia should be well positioned to successfully nurture and sustain its vibrant agricultural sector and communities.

Today I had the distinct pleasure of meeting with a large group of individuals concerned about the plight of our Pacific wild salmon stocks. They included Alexandra Morton, who many will know from the documentary Salmon Confidential, Stan Porboszcz from Watershed Watch, Karen Wristen from Living Oceans Society, Sabra Woodworth from Salmon Are Sacred, Eddie Gardner from the Skwah First Nation, Jefferey Young from the David Suzuki Foundation, Torrance Coste from Wilderness Committee,  Dr. Jeff Matthews, president of Sea Shepherd Canada, Bonny Glambeck from Clayoquot Action, Joseph Martin from the Tla-o-qui-aht First nation council, and Dawn Morrison from the Indigenous Food System Network.

I was afforded the honour of introducing a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. I also introduced a second petition signed by more than 100 business organizations across the province who supported the individuals who signed the larger petition. The business organizations argued that they are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild pacific salmon.

Finally, in Question period I explored what steps (if any) government is taking to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms on sockeye salmon migration routes. Below I provide videos and text of my exchange with the Minister of Agriculture as well as my submission of the petitions.

I have made it a practice to always give government my initial question so I can get an informed response. I do not provide my supplementary question as it will depend on the Minister’s response. The Minister has promised me a more substantive answer to my questions in the coming weeks. I very much look forward to receiving the information.

Video of Question

Question

A. Weaver: The Cohen commission recommended that fish farms not be located on sockeye salmon migration routes, yet this week millions of sockeye fry will be migrating past fish farms in the Discovery Passage and Broughton Archipelago.

Scientific research has suggested a link between fish farm lice outbreaks and the spread of diseases like the piscine reovirus, salmonid alphavirus and the infectious salmon anemia virus The spread, obviously, of such diseases would have grave environmental, cultural and economic consequences for the province of British Columbia, let alone Canada.

Finally, a first in North America, the ‘Namgis Nation on northern Vancouver Island is farming Atlantic salmon at a land-based facility without posing any disease or sea lice threat to wild salmon.

To the Minister of Agriculture: what is the government doing to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms in the ocean and to promote the creation of more operations like the one the ‘Namgis Nation operates?

Answer

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries, including an environmentally and economically sustainable aquaculture industry for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We place the health of all wild fisheries, including salmon, as paramount. That’s why the government works with our federal counterparts and aquaculture operators to monitor for diseases and is prepared to implement a prompt, coordinated and science-based response if necessary.

I want to remind the members opposite that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the jurisdiction of licensing is that of the federal government and tenures is that of the provincial government.

The approval for licensing on the federal government side is quite high. They look for applications that can be rejected for anything to do with biotoxins, water quality, impacts to the environment, impacts to spawning areas, cumulative impact to fisheries and impact to navigable waters.

It’s also very high on the province’s role. We accept Land Act applications for new salmon aquaculture sites from companies that demonstrate world-class standards for resource sustainability.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for referring to the Supreme Court ruling, which in fact, actually, ensures that the province continues to retain jurisdiction over issuing land tenures that designate the area a fish farm will occupy.

Although section 8 of the Land Use Operational Policy for Aquaculture cites the provincial government’s sustainability principles as informing leasing decisions, current operating practices indicate these values are not being adequately applied.

Earlier this month the federal court ruled against an aquaculture licence condition that allowed diseased fish to be transferred into open-pen fish farms, and DFO — that’s federal, of course — has been given four months to fix this policy. Nevertheless, there remains provincial jurisdiction.

Given that we currently lack the regulations needed to verify the presence and control the spread of pathogens in farmed salmon, will the Minister of Agriculture today commit to stop granting new licences of occupation for this industry on sockeye salmon migration routes?

Answer

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I have to repeat that the government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries. That’s why we employ two of the outstanding experts in fish biology right here in British Columbia. That’s why we have the great lab in Abbotsford, to make sure we continue testing for fish diseases.

The federal government is conducting a surveillance program on ISA, as the member has said, and the status of three viruses on the west coast — ISA, IHN and PRV. So far all results were negative, no virus.

When we look at IHN, they tested a total of 1,300 B.C. wild salmon and trout for IHN in 2012-2013. Again, all were negative, no virus.

Sea lice are native to B.C. waters, like many other wild animals which have a population cycle trend. What they find is the more that come during one season, the more potential for sea lice in the following season.

Once again, we take very seriously our role in the provision of licensing and also in tenuring. We will continue to hold those values very high to make sure that our wild salmon are protected in British Columbia.

Postscript

On Thursday, May 28, the Minister of Agriculture rose in the house to clarify and correct a response he gave me above. I am very grateful to the Minister for correcting the record. Below is the text of his clarification.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yesterday during question period in an effort to condense my answer to a member’s question, I accidentally grouped PRV with ISA and IHN. I just want to make sure I put on the record the correct answer. What I would like to clarify to the House regarding PRV, or piscine reovirus, is that many reoviruses are viruses without a disease. To date PRV is common in B.C. farmed fish and some wild fish, but it’s not associated with any disease.

Indeed, published scientific evidence indicates that PRV predates the introduction of salmon farming to our province. Some scientists think PRV is the cause of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, HSMI, a disease that affects farmed Atlantic salmon in Europe. Recent research shows that the type of PVR in Europe is different from the type of PRV in B.C. Lastly, HSMI does not occur in British Columbia.

Thank you for allowing me to clear up the record.

Video of Petition Submissions

Submission of First Petition Text

I would like to present a petition on this — probably the most irresponsible fiscal decision the government has ever made — day in the B.C. Legislature.

This is a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. The rationale for that I outlined in question period.

This petition very clearly identifies the wishes of British Columbians. This petition, I hope, is listened to by the government of British Columbia.

Submission of Second Petition Text

A. Weaver: I have a second petition.

Now this is a petition of over 100 business organizations across the province who are essentially supporting the 109,000 individuals who signed this. These business organizations are small business, umbrella organizations, environmental organizations, fly fishing organizations, river societies, sail societies— numerous societies across British Columbia.

They are asking that the following: we the undersigned are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild pacific salmon.

Summary of the Bill

Yesterday, Bill 21,  2015: Fish and Seafood Act passed third reading and now awaits Royal Assent. All members in the Legislature supported it. The Fish and Seafood Act replaces and updates the Fish Inspection Act and the Fisheries Act, last updated in the 1960s, with a modern framework that builds on British Columbia’s local and international reputation as a source of sustainable and trusted seafood products. It further improves operating conditions for British Columbia’s seafood sector.

The new legislation will update the licensing and regulation of the buying, selling, handling, storing and processing of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants. The legislation will also include the following to support sustainability and consumer confidence in the safety of B.C. seafood:

• Enabling the creation of a seafood traceability system to ensure seafood processed in British Columbia is both safe and legally caught, cultured, bought and sold. The system will ensure British Columbia seafood products are responsibly produced and harvested, and can be traced from the processor to the consumer.
• Prohibiting the possession of illegally caught, cultured, harvested or processed seafood products, and the unlicensed sale of fish, ensuring only sustainably harvested and safely handled seafood products enter the food chain.

The new act also increases inspection and enforcement.

Banning the Sale, Trade and Distribution of Shark Fins

On November 19, 2014 I was visited by a remarkable group of students from Glenlyon Norfolk School who, together with their teacher, had been working tirelessly to do what they can to make people aware of the plight of the world’s shark population. Following my meeting with the students I asked the Minister of Agriculture two questions during Question Period:

1) Will the government introduce legislation to ban the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia?

2) Will the government commit to working with me and other MLAs to develop a strategy that would eventually lead to banning the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia?

In response, the Minister subsequently committed to meet with me to discuss the issue. We met and at the meeting I promised to put together a package of information that he committed to pass along to Ministry staff for a thorough review.

Shortly after the meeting, I presented the Minister with a binder containing detailed and comprehensive information outlining the rationale for implementing shark fin legislation. The response to my information package that I received from the Minister in February was disappointing. The Minister did not respond to my specific question as to whether the government would consider introducing legislation to ban the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia.

The good news and new reality is that the government has since introduced Bill 21: Fish and Seafood Act. This Bill opens the door for moving forward on a ban on the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia. The key and relevant aspects of this bill are contained in section 6:

Possession or distribution of restricted fish or aquatic plants

6  (1) In this section, “restricted fish or aquatic plants” means prescribed fish or aquatic plants that

(a) are subject to prohibitions or restrictions on harvesting under an enactment of Canada or an international agreement to which Canada is a party, or

(b) may be subject to harvesting practices that are inhumane or unsustainable.

   (2) A person must not possess or distribute for human consumption restricted fish or aquatic plants except as authorized under

(a) a licence, permit or other authorization issued under an enactment of Canada, or

(b) a permit issued by a licensing officer.

Yesterday at committee stage for the Bill I probed the minister on the implications of section 6 with respect to the sale, trade and distribution of shark fin products in British Columbia. I pick up the questioning immediately after Gary Holman, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands asked the Minister if the list of restricted species would be published in the regulations attached to Bill 21.

Please note that this was the first time that I stood to speak on Monday. I had surgery on my nose last Friday and showed up in the legislature wearing a nose splint. The beginning of our conversation involves some back and forth banter about the dangers of texting while you walk.

Bill 21 Committee Stage Questions/Answers

G. Holman: There’s this reference to “restricted fish or aquatic plants,” and there are references to prohibitions or restricted “under an enactment of Canada or international agreement.” Will this list of restricted species be published in the regulations?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes.

A. Weaver: Could the minister please expand on what basis this list will be determined?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to — I believe — the member opposite for the question. I’m not too sure. We’re going to have to get an explanation of that in a minute, I’m sure.

The restricted fish and aquatic plants are those that are under two categories: (a) are subject to national or international prohibitions or restrictions on harvesting, and (b) may be subject to harvesting practices that are inhumane or unsustainable.

A. Weaver: That was an opening for me. I recognize it’s very hard to take me seriously when I look like Beak Man here. There’s always a teachable moment in everything that we do in our lives, and the teachable moment that I have here is that one should not text and walk. We hear a lot about texting and driving and the dangers of texting and driving, but let me tell you, hon. Chair, also texting and walking can be very dangerous, particularly if you’re jogging downstairs quickly while texting and not looking where you’re going.

With that, if I could continue on this. Does this mean that if an organization called the United Nations International Union for the Conservation of Nature, through their red list, were to deem a particular species to be protected and subject to international restrictions, this law would then apply in the province of British Columbia to those on the IUCN red list?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thanks to the member opposite for the question and the teachable moment. I’ve always thought — because I am one of those who is guilty of texting and reading messages while I’m walking — that someone should create an app so that while you are doing your thing, you can actually have a proximity indicator. So if you are about to bump into something, it would flash at you to look up. Or if not, at least maybe a little part of the screen with the camera in the front so that you can see before you bump into that pane of glass, or whatever else it is that caused that unfortunate accident on your face.  I wish you the speediest of recoveries, hon. member. I honestly do. That must have hurt.

Back to the question. The answer is if the prohibition is part of an international agreement which Canada is a party of, then the answer is, yes, it could be.

The Chair: Member, perhaps we should keep the discussion and discourse to Bill 21. It would probably be in the best interest of all members.

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, I will do that, but let me please point out that in British Columbia we have an incredible health care system too. I had a very luxurious time in the Royal Jubilee Hospital here on Friday last week, and I do compliment the staff there. On that note…

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I had a nurse-to-patient ratio of four nurses to one patient, too, and that was pretty impressive.

Anyway, back to the question. That is actually quite exciting. What’s interesting there is that…. You will recall that during the session last time, I raised a number of questions with respect to banning the sale, trade and distribution of a variety of shark fin products. In fact, there are a number of sharks that are actually protected on the red list of the IUCN to which Canada is a party.

So my question then, following this up, would be: to what extent will these laws be enforced, and what penalties will be put in place and how is the province going to enforce this legislation?

For example, if some people were to go in and purchase a product and have it genetically analyzed and that product was then determined to contain hammerhead sharks, for example, which we know are on the IUCN red list, would the province then step in ban the sale, trade and distribution of this? How would this be enforced?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, including his support for our health care system.

First of all, as I said before, this would be subject to Canada and the other parties being part of an international agreement. So that’s one. Then we could have this provision take effect. There would have to be genetic testing to make sure that the species is on the list. That would usually happen, I’m informed, at the point of purchase. It could be restaurants or a fish store or something like that. So the Ministry of Health would be involved.

If there’s an issue, an offence, then the maximum penalties are dealt with in section 57 of the act. We’ll canvas that, I’m sure, in a few minutes. Specific penalties, subordinate to the maximum penalties, will be described in regulations.

A. Weaver: My final question on this section is with respect to 6(1)(b) where it talks about harvesting practices that are “inhumane.”

My question on that is: inhumane is a value judgment. Who is making the value judgment as to what is or is not defined as inhumane?

Hon. N. Letnick: It would be defined in regulation. It’s not defined in the definitions of the act. And, of course, it would be applied by our inspectors, who would use their judgment in making that call.