Last night I held a public Town Hall on Island Health’s new Patient Care Model. According to Island Health, the new model (titled Care Delivery Model Redesign, or CDMR), will shift from a nurse-centered approach to a team-centered approach that will see an increased role for health care aids. Under the model, Island Health will be cutting 100 baseline nursing positions in 21 units at the Royal Jubilee and Victoria General Hospitals and replacing these positions with 95 new baseline Health Care Aid position.

According to Island Health the model (titled Care Delivery Model Redesign, or CDMR) will address strains on the health care system while increasing the care time a patient receives. However, critics have argued that it could put patients at risk as nurses are replaced with health care aids that are inadequately trained for their new role.

Many constituents wrote me with their concerns about the patient care model. In response, I met with key stakeholders including Island Health, the BC Nurses Union and the College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia.

What became clear is that while Island Health states that the new patient care model is evidence-based, they have yet to release their evidence for public review. Meanwhile, health care research clearly suggests that the new model could have significant implications on the quality of care a patient receives.

The purpose of the town hall was to bring together the different perspectives so that we could become informed about this change to our health care system.

I was pleased that our panel could include:

• Dr. Noreen Frisch, Professor and Director of the UVic School of Nursing
• Dr. Paddy Rodney, Board Member of the Association of Registered Nurses of BC and Professor at the UBC School of Nursing
• Adriane Gear, South Island Co-Chair at the BC Nurses Union
• Sara Shorten, Representative of the UVic Nursing Student Society

Island Health was invited but unfortunately chose not to participate.

In December, I wrote to Dr. Brendan Carr, President and CEO of Island Health and requested that further implementation of the new patient care model be paused until comprehensive, independent and publically-available evaluations can be completed. I also requested that key stakeholders, such as BC’s Registered Nurses and Licensed Practical Nurses be further involved in these evaluations and in developing any plans involving the realignment of care teams.

I will continue to voice these concerns in the coming weeks and encourage constituents to raise their voices as well.

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.

Today I spoke against Bill 2: Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. Below is the text of my speech.

I wanted to use my time here at second reading to address two general areas of concern that I have with this bill. The first concerns the tool used to ensure “effective representation.” I’ll speak to an alternate tool that’s been alluded to by other members earlier that could be considered. The second concerns the criteria used for identifying the 17 ridings for protection

I must say off the bat that after hearing some of the speeches from members opposite, I’m surprised that they have not bought into the hundred thousand jobs which were suspected to be occurring in the north. This legislation may not have actually been as needed as they’re implying.

First, to effective representation.

In the governments white paper on Electoral Boundary Reform they walked us through a fascinating history of the challenges and legal decisions that informed how we determine the boundaries of our electoral districts. These legal decisions highlighted the Canadian “right to vote” was fundamentally a right to “effective representation”. The first condition of this right of effective representation was that of “relative parity of voting power, meaning that a citizen’s right to vote should not be ‘unduly diluted’ compared to another’s”. However, relative voter parity was found to be impossible to achieve in practice, and in fact could be undesirable as factors such as “geography, community interests and minority representation” come into play. Deviations from this voter parity could therefore be justified in so far as they serve the goal of “effective representation”.

You will all have read the White Paper, and so will be familiar with these principles. I do not repeat them for the purpose of taking up time, but instead to highlight the essence of the government’s justification for protecting these ridings, and to build the case for this House to consider an alternative.

I do not think it is helpful for us in this House to pit rural B.C. against urban B.C. Nobody wins when we start to politicize this process.

In its White Paper, the government paints a picture of the Province where certain regions of the province, namely the Kootenay’s, Cariboo-Thompson, northern Vancouver Island, and northern British Columbia are representing smaller and smaller portion of BC’s overall population. These same regions are geographically diverse, creating localized communities of interest – interests which need effective representation.

My issue with this Bill is not on whether or not we need to ensure effective representation of certain regions of our Province – it seems clear to me that it is our responsibility to do so. My issue is with the proposed tool used to ensure effective representation. Freezing the number of ridings in 3 regions of the Province while at the same time freezing the overall number of ridings at 85 appears to me to be a rather blunt tool to ensure effective representation. In fact, I would argue that it fails to do so. It will inflame the issues of representation in the fastest growing parts of the Province, primarily in the Lower Mainland, making their votes worth relatively less. While I am not a lawyer, I question whether or not this legislation would actually survive a court challenge.

The communities that will be underrepresented are no less “localized communities of interest” than the ones this legislation seeks to protect in the North. The communities that will be underrepresented will include ethnic minority groups in communities throughout the Lower Mainland, who already feel that their voice isn’t well represented in the legislature. This brings me to an alternative tool that the House could consider when looking to protect everyone’s right to “effective representation” – voter dispersion.

Effective representation requires an MLA to be accessible to his or her constituents. Ridings, such as North Coast, where the population is dispersed amongst numerous small communities through the region are much more difficult to effectively represent than, say, Vancouver West End where population density is great and population dispersion is small.

Dispersion is different from density. Population dispersion is a measure of the degree of population scatter around a region whereas population density is a measure of the population per unit area.

Mathematically, population density is determined by dividing the total population in a riding by the total area of the riding. Population dispersion is calculated as the ratio of the distance scaled population to the unscaled population. In my view, it provides a very effective tool to measure representation.

This brings me to the second point I want to make about this bill. Paul Ramsey, a Victoria resident, is a statistician and author of the Clever Elephant blog. He has undertaken an extensive analysis of population density and dispersion in all 85 British Columbia ridings. In reviewing the White Paper and the work done by Paul Ramsey on his blog I am uncertain as to the criteria that the government is using to determine which ridings should be protected.

When I look at the list of ridings being protected I see an inconsistency between the arguments the government is advancing about why regions need to be protected and which areas have subsequently received it in this legislation.

First, the two major outliers through this analysis are Kamloops North-Thompson and Kamloops-South Thompson. They appear to share very little in common with the rest of the ridings that are to be protected. They do not significantly deviate from the average population per riding, nor are they among the largest ridings, by area or dispersion. The only identifiable characteristic is their proximity to other ridings which appear to be significantly deviated from the average. This raises the question of criteria – namely how the government selects the ridings that are to be protected.

For comparison, the ridings of North Island, West Vancouver-Sea to Sky, Powell River-Sunshine Coast and Alberni-Pacific Rim could arguably constitute a region in need of protection under the same arguments advanced by the government for the other regions. These ridings share a geographic region and contain numerous small communities, challenging geographic characteristics and in some parts are also seeing a shrinking population relative to the rest of the province. While the population deviation of plus or minus 25% from the provincial average is met for these ridings as well as the two Kamloops ridings, a far more compelling case could be made based on population dispersion for them to be protected.

I use these ridings merely to highlight the point that there is a lack of explanation around the criteria the government used to select these ridings. In order to protect the integrity of the Electoral Boundary Commission now and in the future, I feel it is in the government’s best interest to clarify why certain ridings are to be protected, while others will not.

Thank you Honourable Speaker.

Today I rise to pay tribute to a constituent, Barbara Adams, and to the Municipality of Oak Bay, together with its Mayor, Nils Jensen, for nominating Barbara Adams as their inaugural Oak Bay Arts Laureate.

Barbara Adams is a passionate and tireless advocate for the arts in our community. For a decade she taught at Monterey School where she built the arts program and established the artists-in-a-school program. Her innovative approaches to art education and community engagement were so successful that her annual Monterey Art Gala netted her school department between $10,000 and $25,000 dollars each year. In her 37-year career as an educator, Barbara Adams has inspired a generation of children to appreciate and celebrate the Arts, each in their own personal way.

Being appointed the Oak Bay Arts Laureate is just the latest of numerous honours that have been bestowed upon Barbara Adams over the years, including a Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal and a Community Arts Council Community Arts Award, to name just two.

But I know that the being named the Oak Bay Arts Laureate is very special to her.

The Oak Bay Arts Laureate is an honourary position whose creation was championed by the mayor, Nils Jensen, and it is the first such position in the Capital Regional District, and as far as I can tell, British Columbia, or even Canada. The Arts Laureate acts as a good will ambassador to enhance arts and culture within the community of Oak Bay. The Arts Laureate organizes and coordinates events and creates projects that enhance arts and culture in Oak Bay. The Arts Laureate also liaises with Arts and Cultural Organizations across the Capital Regional District. And yes, the Arts Laureate has a budget to work with!

I for one am excited about what’s in store for Oak Bay as Barbara Adams enriches the profile of Art across our community. Thank you to Nils Jensen and the District of Oak Bay for creating the Arts Laureate position and thank you Barbara Adams for all that you do in our community.

Today I attended a rally on the lawn of the legislature in support of a province wide ban on trophy killing of an iconic species: The Grizzly Bear. For more information on the Save BC Bears campaign, please visit their Facebook page. Below is the text of my speech at the rally.

Speech at the Save BC Bears Demonstration

on the Lawn of the Legislature

February 15, 2014

Thank you all for coming to this very important event.

The Orca is an iconic species in British Columbia. And so too are Grizzly bears.

Would we condone the trophy killing of an Orca — just for the heck of it? Obviously not. Yet we allow the trophy killing of Grizzly bears — just for the heck of it.

The Coastal First Nation Great Bear initiative recently conducted a province-wide survey. Almost 90% of British Columbians believe that trophy killing of grizzly bears should be banned.

And this number is also important: 95% of hunters agree that people should not be hunting if they are not prepared to eat what they kill.

91% of hunters agree that fellow hunters should respect First Nations laws and customs when on First Nation territory.

In the case of the Great Bear Rainforest, bear viewing generated 12 times more in visitor spending than bear killing and over 11 times in direct revenue for BC’s provincial government.

Bear viewing generated 50 times the jobs of trophy killing.

When we think about habitat, climate and the impacts we are having on iconic species like Grizzlies look no further than what has happened this winter in Europe.

Due to an incredibly mild winter, bears in Finland have come out early from hibernation into an environment with little food. The climate in BC is rapidly changing as well. We have had one of the driest winters on record, with low snow pack – how will this affect food supply for BC Grizzlies, and their population? We have simply no idea.

We have no idea how many Grizzly bears there are in BC. We have no idea how they are responding to climate change.

But here’s what I know: I know what I want — I know what you want — I know what BC hunters want — and I know what the people of BC want.

A province wide ban on trophy killing.

And I reiterate again, we’re not taking today about the majority of hunters in BC harvesting deer and other species for food.

This is all about a government protecting a small lobby of well-heeled jet setters looking to tick one more item off their bucket list.

We have an opportunity right now in the Great Bear Rainforest. A coalition of 9 First Nations, scientists and environmental groups have been undertaking field work on bear populations, breeding habits, and the impacts of trophy killing. They’ve done extensive analysis. At the same time, forest companies and environmental groups have reached an agreement on the preservation of the Great Bear rainforest.

That region must be immediately declared a sanctuary

Thank you