Yesterday I rose in the BC Legislature to provide a more detailed discussion of my response to Budget 2019. My remarks build upon my initial comments released earlier this week. Below I reproduce in text and video my somewhat extensive remarks in support (with caveats) of Budget 2019.

As you will see in the speech, the government’s 2019 budget provides clear evidence that the B.C. Greens’ participation in this landmark minority government has been a success in advancing our values and policy priorities.

---

Video of my Speech

---

---

Text of my speech

---

A. Weaver: I will be the designated speaker on this particular topic. It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Budget 2019.

Before I begin, I’d like to thank my staff down in the B.C. Green caucus office, who spent an enormous amount of time over the last few months putting together our priorities, as well as the staff in the civil service and within the CASA secretariat — through which we often convey informations on which we sometimes — more often than not — get timely responses and feedback on suggestions. So thanks to the staff. We wouldn’t be able to do the good work that we do in this place were it not for the dedicated staff who put in countless hours, including the staff who last night didn’t go home until very late because, as you know, we are a bit small but mighty in the B.C. Green caucus, and I was up second here today. So thank them again for all their hard work.

I’d like to start with a bit of a personal narrative if I may moving into this budget speech to give a sense of the way I got into politics and where we are now. It’s important because it gives us a general sense as to why I’m quite pleased — no, very pleased — with the direction that this budget has taken. I will come to address some of the comments from the critic — the B.C. Liberal critic — that were just made.

Because, frankly, I believe that they need to be addressed as some of their comments were quite outrageous. I question whether the member for Surrey-Whalley has actually spent the good time necessary to get into some of the details of this budget, because some of the statements were simply wrong. That’s not good enough.

An Hon. Member: Surrey–White Rock.

A. Weaver: Surrey–White Rock. What did I…? I do apologize. Surrey–White Rock.

So coming to the personal narrative. As anyone would know, my background was a climate scientist at University of Victoria. I arrived there in 1992. I came to Victoria because of the quality of life we could offer here in British Columbia. We had many possibilities of going to other jurisdictions but, ultimately, I’m from Victoria, my wife’s from Victoria, and we wanted to have children and a family grow up next to our grandparents who are both alive today, both still living in the houses that we were born and grew up in here in this area. That was the critical, important issue for us. We wanted a family. We wanted to grow up in a place that we could call home and in a beautiful place. That is British Columbia.

I’ll come to that again because that is one of our strategic strengths. One of our strategic strengths in British Columbia is that we’re able to attract and retain people from around the world because of the stable democracy that we have — you’d never know it based on question period — but also because of the quality of life we offer and the economic opportunities that are present for people who come here.

We came here in 1992, and I worked as a climate scientist at UVic working on the second, third, fourth, fifth scientific assessments of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — 1995, 2001, 2007 and 2013. Even here when I was sitting here as an MLA, I had to resign as a lead author once the writ was dropped. But even in the lead-up to that, I was working on these international assessments.

We know that over the last 150 years the earth has made a transition from a past — a past when climate used to affect the evolution and dispersal of humans to a present when, in fact, humans are affecting the evolution and change of the climate and the weather that we experience on a daily basis. What we are at risk of losing on this planet…. Frankly, what’s already in the process of we’re losing now is staggering. When scientists…. These are not activists. These are scientists who feel far more comfortable sitting at the lab bench tinkering with their chemicals or their test-tubes. When they’re talking about between 60 and 80 percent of all the world’s species committed to extinction by the end of this century, that should get people to wake up — 60 to 80 percent of the world’s species committed to extinction because of climate change this century. That’s something that we need to wake up to. It’s something that points fundamentally to the issue of intergenerational equity and the question which climate change can be framed into is: do we, the present generation, owe anything to future generations in terms of the quality of the environment that we leave behind?

Now, I would suggest most of us believe that we do. We have children. We save for the future. We might have a little nest egg for them. We put money aside in a retirement and education savings plan for them. We put them in education systems to train them for the future. We care about the future of our children in many aspects of our life.

The question I ask to the members here is: do we, the present generation, actually believe we owe anything in terms of the quality of the environment we leave behind? Action now is what is fundamentally required if the answer to that is yes.

We know through a direct analogy, and here it is. Put a pot of water on a stove, and turn the element up to eight. The analogy is direct. The water and the pot are the oceans of the world.

The element going up to eight is increasing levels of greenhouse gases. Well, we know when we put the element up to eight, the water in the pot doesn’t boil right away. We might think that it’s all nice. We have an element of eight. The water is not boiling, and we sit and wait and wait and wait.

Then all of a sudden, we go: “Oh no. It’s too hot. It’s boiling. I have to turn the heat down.” I turn the element down. But guess what. It’s too late. It’s too late because the water has already warmed up and it doesn’t cool right away. That is something known as thermal inertia, and it’s the direct consequence of the fact that the heat capacity of water is five times greater than it is of sand, for example, and it takes a long time for the oceans to equilibrate, particularly as they’re moving, with the incoming radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

We see things like El Niños and La Niñas. We get Trump tweeting out about winter in Chicago meaning global warming is ending. But we expect that as that heat stored in the ocean shiffles around in the ocean and changes weather patterns on any given week, month, season or even year to year.

But what we also know is the oceans are warming. As they warm, they store heat. That heat is around for a very, very long time — in fact, centuries and millennia. So we know that even if we do no more than keep existing levels of greenhouse gases the same as they are today — do nothing more — that we’ll warm to somewhere between 1.8 and 1.9 degrees as a direct consequence of a permafrost carbon feedback and the fact that we have an equilibration to come to that temperature equilibrium with the knob on the dial set to 8, for example.

We also know that if we suddenly say, “Oh no, we have to reduce greenhouse gases,” we may reduce the gases but the heat in the ocean doesn’t go away right away. It takes time. That is the reason why, if we fundamentally believe in intergenerational equity and we believe that we owe it to future generations to leave behind an environment that, frankly, is habitable like the one we have, we have to act today. Because waiting for tomorrow is too late.

When I see a budget recognize that…. You know that to me, this is a culminating effort as to one of the reasons why I got into politics. I got here for this to happen. The fact that CleanBC was announced on December 5, a date that I will never forget, and that we have $902 million dedicated in this budget, a number I will never forget — not even counting the myriad other measures which have been also announced that don’t actually reflect in that $902 million — you know that I’m pleased. Because finally, we have a government that is actually putting this back on the table as a priority.

I think, frankly, not only today’s generation but future generations will turn around and thank this government, this minority government — and, frankly, the B.C. Greens as well — for the work that we collectively did to get this here. [Applause.]

Thank you to my friend from Vancouver–West End.

I’m just looking for my notes here that I must have, seemed to have, lost. That’s okay. I’ll find some others.

One of the things I wanted to mention is, if we go to Sir David Attenborough, what he recently said in December at the UN was this. “If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” Some people would say this is alarming.

But what I say to people who suggest that is: what other issue in any other aspect of our society do you see that the experts in the field are the loudest and the most outspoken people? No other issue that I know of, other than climate science. It is the climate scientists who are the ones screaming from the rafters about the importance of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions.

Sure, there are some other NGOs out there doing that as well — and the good work that they do. But if you go to many of the issues in our society, it is not the experts in the field who are invariably shouting out. In this, each and every climate scientist I know who’s practicing and publishing worldwide is concerned.

I have never seen an issue in any aspect of science where there is so much unanimity in support of a direction that needs to happen and so much collective bewilderment as to why our political leaders are unable to grasp, with the challenge ahead, unable to recognize that this challenge is actually the greatest opportunity for economic innovation and growth that we have ever seen.

But we have that being recognized here in B.C., because CleanBC is not a climate plan. It is an economic vision for this province, one that clearly…. Clearly, the member for Surrey–White Rock — it went over her head, because she clearly doesn’t understand that the age of neoliberal economics is gone.

What people are looking for today is not for government to pick winners with their big corporate fans, who are donating — but not anymore in B.C., thanks to this minority government…. What they’re looking for is for governments to send a signal to the broader market but also to ensure that people have the skills and tools and abilities to participate in this new economy.  Because it is people that matter. It is people that fundamentally are the ones that drive economic growth.

It is not the multi-billion-dollar generational sellout embodied in our tax credit system for the oil and gas sector. That is not what builds prosperity. What builds prosperity is innovation, education and focusing on people, which is why I’m very pleased with this budget.

You know, in 2007, I had the honour of being on the climate action team under the then leader, Gordon Campbell, another leader who understood not only the challenge but the opportunity that greenhouse gas reduction was affording British Columbia. It was during that time that B.C. became the first jurisdiction to put a price on carbon, an issue that, frankly, I don’t think the member for Surrey–White Rock yet fully understands — what was done, why it was done, what’s being done and the difference.

It’s actually quite embarrassing to hear the words coming from the critic on topics that, clearly, she has not spent some time looking into. You know, B.C. stood as an example then. It’s true that initially it was revenue-neutral. It’s true that we had legislation in place to force revenue neutrality. But let’s be clear. Revenue-neutral was an afterthought in terms of accounting than it was in terms of actual policy drivers. So it is false to claim that somehow there was a magic revenue neutrality that was occurring because of deliberate choices.

Initially corporate and income taxes were reduced, but after a while, it became difficult. What was happening is we were getting weird tax credits. The hockey stick tax credit — my favourite — the $12 tax credit that people didn’t even know they could claim. Each and every parent could claim a $12 tax credit for a hockey stick if your kid bought a hockey stick. Really? That is B.C. Liberal progressive policies? I don’t think so.

I watched, though, initially as…. When I was on that climate action team — and the leadership by the then government — I watched emissions drop in British Columbia. They dropped as the carbon price began to take place. But then what happens, and so often happens, is people forget why they’re leaders. They lose track as to the reason why they were doing what they’re doing. They get distracted by other issues.

Or, in the case of Mr. Campbell, the HST defeat and subsequent change in leadership led to a complete ripping apart, tearing down and dismantling of any climate legacy he had. Let’s be clear, to the members opposite. Virtually every policy measure brought in by the Campbell government was either disbanded or not increasing anymore. Virtually every one.

So there is no moral high ground, not even a moral low ground, for the members opposite to stand on, on the climate file. So I won’t for one second listen to any of the rhetoric coming from any member opposite on any aspect of greenhouse gas reductions in light of the fact that under their government, they literally dismantled every single policy measure that was brought in by the Campbell government in the space of only a couple of years. So no, there’s no moral high ground, which is, again, why we’re so pleased to actually stand and support this budget here today.

What we do know is…. Let me quote from the Vancouver Province yesterday. This quote is really important in light of today’s shocking revelation. “More than $1 billion dollars a year laundered through a B.C. underground bank servicing Mexican cartels, Asian gangs and Middle Eastern crime groups.” Let me say that again. This is from a Paris-based international organization. This isn’t from the Fraser Institute or IntegrityBC or some local…. This is an international Paris-based organization — reported out that more than $1 billion a year laundered through a B.C. underground bank servicing Mexican cartels, Asian gangs and Middle Eastern crime groups.

Guess what we find out today? We find out that the B.C. Liberals were giving them tax credits to launder money in B.C. Can you believe this? In British Columbia. It could only happen here. The B.C. Liberal government, through Advantage B.C., gave tax credits to money launderers setting up shop here in B.C. For any B.C. Liberal member, let alone a Finance critic, to have the gall to stand up here in this Legislature and suggest that members on this side of the House somehow don’t understand the affordability issue or somehow don’t understand what’s going on with the economics of this province — it’s just mind-boggling.

If ever I have seen a lack of economic oversight or wisdom, it has been in the last four years I was sitting in this Legislature with a government that clearly was out of ideas and had lost touch with the people who elected it. Clearly, the members opposite still don’t realize that they didn’t win the last election. They’re sitting there for at least two years, and based on their performance in the last few question periods and months ahead, they’ll be there for another four years after that because they still lack a vision. They’re angry. They’re bitter. They’re cynical. They’re just all…. Everything everyone else does is wrong, and they don’t offer solutions. That’s not good enough. As a critic, you have a duty and a responsibility, sure, to criticize. But that’s not good enough.

If you don’t like what’s being done, you’ve got to propose what you’d do instead. And I heard absolutely none of that, not a single proposal, not a single thing that the B.C. Liberals would have liked to have seen. Not a single thing that they would have liked to have done. Not a single thing that they think should be done in order to make B.C. prosperous. Why? They had their chance. They had nothing. And now they still have nothing, so they continue to harp on the same tired narrative that if the NDP do something, it must be bad because the NDP did it.

Well, that’s the problem with politics in B.C. That is why the people have lost confidence in a lot of what’s going on here. They’re cynical about the inability of politicians to actually say: “You know what? That’s okay. You did a good job here. We wouldn’t have done it that way, but we did a good job.” That’s what you are hearing from the B.C. Greens. We wouldn’t have done everything in this budget. But we think the Finance Minister has done a good job. In fact, today in question period, I was very impressed with how well she defended her actions, so impressed that I would suggest that she has solidified her commanding role as leader of the financial governings of this party.

You know, the budget provides clear evidence to me that our participation in this landmark minority government has been a success. If ever there was a day that we thought we made a wrong decision back in May of 2017, never more. Without any doubt, the three of us, with the weighty responsibility we had, we had to make a choice. We chose, ultimately, to support a B.C. NDP government because there were more things of shared value. But fundamentally, it was because they had agreed that dealing with climate change is an important issue, and they agreed that dealing with it should not be viewed as a stick. It’s a carrot. It’s an economic opportunity. And while the members opposite quibble about a carbon tax increase, they fail to mention that, okay, the carbon tax is going on. But right now, if you want to go home and convert your natural gas heat pump or your oil burner to a heat pump, there’s now money in the budget to assist this transition. That’s good for innovation.

The cottage industry that was created in British Columbia when the B.C. Liberals, when they used to have a vision, was created through the — what was the program called? The small renovate B.C. program that allowed you to…. I’m sorry. I’ve forgotten the name. This happens when you turn over the age of 50. Some of the names don’t stick. It was a small retrofit program that created a cottage industry, a small industry of small builders putting in niche markets, retrofitting your energy uptake, putting on solar panels — that’s what happened. That was very innovative by the B.C. Liberals. It’s gone, of course, coming back here through a creation of policies that will incentivize this.

This is what does create jobs. It’s not government picking LN — well, bad example — but picking, say, Steelhead LNG and saying: “You’re the winner. We’re going to give you this because you’ve donated to us, so you’re the winning technology.” It doesn’t do that. It says that we’re sending a signal to the market. We’re sending a signal to the market that this is the direction we want to head it. Let the market propose the solutions. That’s good economic policy. It seems to have gone over the head of the critic.

You know, we’ve also…. Power Smart. Thank you to the member for Richmond-Queensborough. Power Smart was the program. I do appreciate that. There’s room for you over on this side of the House, there, sir, if you remember that name. Clearly, you’re under the age of 50, and you have hope for the future. Too bad most of your caucus members have been here for 20 years and nothing’s changed in your party. Maybe you can help rejuvenate some of them as well.

Back to the….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: A good fraction of them are. I look around this room, and I see people who’ve been here a very long time.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Pardon me?

I’m just going to pause for a second, hon. Speaker, if I might, to give my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant a few minutes to make an introduction, if you so give me leave.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: In the precinct is a very good friend. We battled together. We ran in a by-election together. He is a city councillor for Vancouver. He’s representing us fiercely and passionately. He’s been a family friend. He’s a resident in Strathcona. I admire his leadership so much. Thank you for everything that you do, Pete Frey, Green Party city councillor for Vancouver. Would the House please join me in welcoming my good friend.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: Had I known that my good friend Pete Frey was also sitting up there, I too would’ve introduced him, so I thank the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for the introduction. I didn’t see Pete up there. I hope to see you later this afternoon if you’ve got some time.

Back to the budget. We’ve had a number of successes in this budget, advancing some of our key values as B.C. Greens and some of our key policy priorities. I’ll try to go into some detail as I get through this. Some of the topics, for example: CleanBC. Education was a major priority for us in the last provincial election.

Professional reliance is something that my colleague, the MLA for Cowichan Valley, has very personal experiences dealing with and has spent a good deal of time working with the Minister of Environment revising that.

We’ve got increasing affordability for students, something that we actually pushed, as well as government — to bring this in in a timely fashion. I’ll come to each of these separately, but that is a really significant advance.

We’ve got investments in youth mental health. The Foundry organizations across B.C. — what a successful model they are, and I’m glad to see funding in that regard.

We’ve got other policies in the confidence and supply agreement, which, you know, has been unique in its ups-and-downs challenges. But, as per the CASA and what we agreed to do, we were consulted on government’s approach to the budget. We were able to put in our submission. Not through…. We were not given, of course, any information as to what’s in the budget, but like other stakeholders we made a submission to government about what were B.C. Green priorities.

Honestly, we valued that opportunity to submit, and we’ve worked quite collaboratively in this regard for quite some time. Frankly, I think it behooves all of us in this room to perhaps do a little more of that.

Recognizing that I get that people are opposition or not, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t actually support good ideas or try to give others credit for some good ideas. It just, it seems like it’s not possible with the members opposite. Maybe if they learned a little humility, a little humility to recognize that it’s okay to praise somebody on the other side, it’d go a long way to rebuilding public support for their particular party.

Let me come into these in some more detail. Obviously and personally, the CleanBC was a particular interest to me. It’s not, of course, something that falls squarely in the purview of the Minister of Environment. It’s not just one ministry. It’s a government-wide approach, CleanBC is. It’s not a climate plan, per se. It’s an economic plan. When people realize it’s an economic plan, they’ll recognize how exciting it is.

We have, in British Columbia, some key strategic opportunities that will allow us to seize upon the opportunities afforded in a low-carbon economy. As I mentioned earlier, when I came here to British Columbia, it was for the lifestyle. I came to Victoria, the University of Victoria, known for paying the lowest university salaries in the country.

Why? Because they could. Because people would go to UVic, and they knew they could attract people at a lower wage because people got to live in Victoria. Who wouldn’t want to live in Victoria? I guess some of the MLAs who live in other areas, but for most, what a great place to have a family and what a great place to have kids grow up and to go to school.

We know that that’s a key strategic advantage of British Columbia — that we are a destination of choice. Because of that, we can attract and retain the best and brightest from all around the world, in highly mobile sectors, because of the quality of life. We should never forget that.

If you want to retain that strategic advantage, you have to protect that which created the strategic advantage. That is our environment, our access to beautiful outdoors and our lifestyle. That is what we have to protect.

The B.C. Liberal approach has been to have a free-for-all in rural B.C., in terms of economic building here and there, with no overall oversight, ensuring the cumulative effects or the longer-term consequences. So we’re struggling with ungulate declines. We’re struggling with natural habitat loss. We’re struggling with salmon species that are going extinct. We’re struggling with orca populations. We’re struggling with the very things, the very values we had that create the strategic advantage of us over everyone else in the world. You can go anywhere in the world in most professions these days, but we have that strategic strength. We must protect it.

We also have access to boundless renewable energy here in B.C., like no other jurisdiction in the world. I challenge anyone in this place here to find any other jurisdiction that has geothermal, tidal, solar, wind, biomass, small-scale hydro, has every possible source of renewable energy that we could want here. And we have one of the best education systems in the world, if not the best.

You don’t have to believe me. Just go to the PISA international assessments, and you’ll see that, every two years, B.C. ranks right at the top in terms of reading, writing and math, if not the top, in Canada. In fact, people often tout the Finnish school system. In fact, ironically, members opposite, when I first got elected…. So little did they trust their own B.C. public education sector….

This was before the member for Peace River South was minister, so I’m not going to throw him under the bus here. My good friend there is nodding and thanking me for that, I can see.

One of the first things they did was — guess what — send off some young student to Finland to study the Finnish education system to bring back lessons for B.C. Well, the only studying she should have done was gone to the latest PISA assessments and recognized that B.C. beat Finland in all of the metrics and this was an outrageous policy.

If the B.C. Liberals had recognized that we have quality education, they wouldn’t have spent so many years going after teachers, cutting the system and then, down the road, wondering why we’re dealing with some of the social problems we’re dealing with — with naloxone and drug and alcohol addictions and things like that.

When you cut the services that children need at their critical years of development — those are the early K-to-12 years — you cut…. And they were the first go — the child psychologists, the speech pathologists, the in-class help, the class size. The teachers were unable to manage with multiple different classifications of kids. The number of individual education plans a teacher might have — upwards of five, six at some times. Then you wonder why, when we don’t give the children of today — it was actually yesterday — the head start they need to function, to actually take advantage of the opportunity society holds, we end up with a problem down the road.

I can tell you why. It was mean-spirited, and it was shortsighted. While the member for Abbotsford West likes to pretend that somehow he had a magical hand on the budget, I say this to him: what Minister of Finance would let more than a billion dollars go surplus in an election year? I’ll tell you what. It’s a Minister of Finance who has no idea of what’s going on in his Finance Ministry. That’s who will do it. Because, clearly, that was an outrageous budget surplus, and I’m pleased that government here today has stepped in.

In the context of CleanBC, this is not just an investment for today, but this is an investment for the future as well. It’s going to go a long way, but not all the way, to reaching our 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions by 2030, based on 2007 levels. When I say not all the way, it’s because only three-quarters, 75 percent, has been done. Of the $902 million, a significant fraction has been set aside for the promised policy measures that will be developed over the next year or so. We look forward for more announcements in the next budget in 2020.

CleanBC will reduce B.C.’s carbon emissions by 18.9 megatonnes by the year 2030. That’s significant. That’s very significant. Of the $902 million investment, $354 million is in operating funds, and $299 million — that’s almost $300 million — is a contingency for programs currently in development. These are for the next 25 percent released.

And $26 million is in capital investments to help people and businesses reduce their emissions — Power Smart B.C. — and $223 million will increase the climate action tax credit in 2019, 2020 and 2021. This is critical, because this goes back to a slightly different notion. Again, this is more along the lines of a fee-and-dividend approach than it is in terms of revenue neutrality in terms of tax reduction. What the government has chosen to do…. Of course, we supported this as it’s written straight into the CASA. We recognized that for those who are at the lower income, the small increase in carbon tax can actually place a burden on otherwise affordability measures. So the carbon tax refund, which matches with the GST refund that we get, will go up by upwards of $400 for a family of four.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Yeah, so we were just having a lecture earlier on about when you give…. The first responses to budget speeches, hon. Speaker, have a rich tradition of not heckling the person giving the first response, as you know. Then the Liberals berated the B.C. NDP for doing that, and then, of course, as I give the first response as a B.C. Green, I get heckled by the B.C. Liberals. It shows you the hypocrisy out there. “Do as I say, not as I do” is the motto that we seem to see here, emanating from members opposite.

Back to the CleanBC. There are specific measures in there: $107 million are for zero-emission vehicle standards — $107 million. That’s a non-trivial amount of money. That’s for point-of-sale electric vehicle incentives, new charging stations, training and research and active transportation initiatives. That should be added to the notion that we were going to have 100 percent emission-free vehicles by 2040 and 40 percent ZEV-standard by 2030. This is world leading. This is exciting, and industry is responding.

We know that the average British Columbian can save $6,000 for an electric vehicle. Not only are you saving six thousand bucks for an electric vehicle, you’re avoiding the carbon tax forever. As someone who has had an EV for quite a number of years now, I can tell you that the second you drive off that lot, that is the last time that you will ever think twice about ever owning another gas-powered vehicle.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: To the member for Vancouver-Langara, I salute you, because you have a Chevy Bolt. Actually, it’s probably either that or the Hyundai Kona that will be the next car that we get, as well, because it gets a slightly longer range. So kudos to the member for Vancouver-Langara for stepping up with a Chevy Bolt. The Bolt wasn’t around. It was just the Volt when I got my first EV. Terry Lake, who’s no longer here, a member from Kamloops South or North Thompson, had a Chevy Volt. It’s a plug-in hybrid. It’s kind of cheating, but showing leadership, nonetheless. But the member for Vancouver-Langara has clearly stepped it up, as has the Minister of Environment, who has …. I forget what his is. He has an EV.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: No, I have the LEAF. Adam has a LEAF. I forget what he has. It doesn’t matter.  He’s got one, which is what’s important. Why it’s important is it’s showing leadership. It truly is showing leadership. The member for Vancouver-Langara showed leadership. Too bad his leader isn’t showing the same leadership that he showed, but that’s another story for another time and another day.

The CleanBC has $58 million in additional capital funding to make buildings more fuel efficient, more energy efficient. It can provide $14,000 for homeowners to switch to high-efficiency heating equipment and to make building envelope improvements. Think about that. Think about the opportunity people have to switch from an oil furnace, bypassing the gas and going straight to a heating exchanger. If you’ve the duct work in your house, you’re set for a heating exchanger, because the oil furnace and the gas furnace are pumping the air through the same direction and the same places that the heat exchanger will. This is an incentive that people will respond to.

There’s upwards of $2,000 to replace a fossil fuel — oil, propane or natural gas — heating system with an electric air source pump, as I mentioned. A thousand bucks to upgrade windows and doors to be better insulated. This is an interesting one, too, because we seem to think it’s a standard to put double-pane in. Why are we putting double-pane in? Let’s put triple-pane. Why would we do double-pane when triple-pane exists? And you save money. It’s a little more expensive, sure. But the payback is sure.

Eighteen million dollars will be here to work with Indigenous and remote communities to move to cleaner energy sources. This is for moving off diesel and so forth, and $168 million over three years to assist large industry in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to make their operations cleaner. There’s $3 million for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy for implementation and monitoring. That was the money in the budget.

What about greenhouse gases? The zero-emission vehicle standard will reduce emissions by about 2030, while signalling to North America that B.C. is the place for innovation. B.C. is the place for innovation in the transportation sector.

We already have amazing companies, like a Richmond-based company building batteries for ferries. We already have amazing advances here in B.C., but we’re one of the last to adopt the innovation that our innovators actually develop. This CleanBC is saying: “No more. Let’s get back on track.”

We know that the additional electric vehicle incentives and subsidies will cut another 0.3 megatonnes. Low-carbon fuel standard will count for a reduction of about 4.4 megatonnes.

Here’s an interesting fact that people may not know, if they’re riveted to their TV screen: under the ZAP EV program in B.C. — it’s a program that’s funded by oil companies, clearly — you can actually get a free electric charger in your house. It costs zero dollars. Why? Because clearly, as you switch to an electric car, what is happening here is your usage is being tracked, and that counts as a credit against a low-carbon fuel standard. It’s actually beneficial for companies selling gas in B.C. to give you a free EV charger at your home to help you move off gas. I love subsidies like that — polluter pay. Polluter pay, and onwards we go.

The building code improvements will cut half a megatonne; building efficiency energy policies — 1½ megatonnes. Policies for remote and rural communities to switch off diesel and support large industry will reduce 2½ megatonnes.

Methane regulations, coming to play largely with the federal government but some provincial — 0.9 megatonnes. Industrial electrification — 3.5 megatonnes. Carbon capture and storage — I’m a little leery about this one — 2.6 megatonnes. Renewable gas regulations for industry — 0.9 megatonnes. Waste reduction — 0.7 megatonnes. Carbon pricing — five bucks a year, going up next year as well — 1.8 megatonnes.

Altogether, the incremental reductions are about 18.9 megatonnes. But even with that, as I mentioned, we’re only going to get to 75 percent of our 2030 target. Again, it would clearly be a lot easier if we didn’t have to worry about that LNG Canada monkey on our back. Nevertheless, it’s a solid start and provides us with momentum to take us the rest of the way there.

I’ve committed, and my colleagues — Saanich North and the Islands and Cowichan Valley — have committed to work closely with government on the CleanBC plan too. We expect further answers in the coming year to see how we’re going to get to 100 percent.

The announcement made in the budget about CleanBC funding by no means is the end. It is but the beginning. It’s the beginning of a transition that will start in British Columbia. It’s the beginning of an exciting pathway for innovation in our economy. It’s not about government picking winners and losers. It’s about government sending a signal to the broader market about the direction it wants our economy to head.

There is one thing you can count on in British Columbia; it’s the innate potential of British Columbians to innovate and to respond to challenges, because British Columbians like to be leaders. They don’t like to be followers. They want to follow leaders, and they want be to leaders in the new economy. This budget is setting them up for success in that regard.

Coming to the CASA…. Many people often ask us: “What’s CASA all about? What’s in CASA? Why are you doing this or that?” CASA, in this, was a foundational document that framed the kind of conditions by which the minority government is supported by the B.C. Greens.

One of the key priorities — I would suggest the fundamental priority for us in terms of us signing on with the CASA — was that it specifically stated that we would implement climate action strategy to meet our targets. I can safely say that that box is checked three-quarters of the way, 75 percent of the way — still got 25 to do.

In the CASA we talked about there, it specifically mentions that the carbon price will increase by $5 a year. Again, what’s the signal? The signal was leadership.

Mr. Trudeau, federally, is now in a big fight with Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta — with New Brunswick kind of mumbling in the background — about carbon pricing. British Columbia has said: “You know what? Let’s get on with meeting Trudeau’s target, but let’s do it in a manner that creates certainty for business and sends a price signal that’s certain. So business has known for the last two years that it will go up another $5 next year, and it’ll go up another $5 after that.

Business has certainty, and British Columbians got leadership. This was a B.C. Green position that we took into our negotiations. We got that leadership. We got that certainty. Government has delivered. Business is responding.

Honestly, the members opposite, desperate to find anything about anything, are now trying to dredge up carbon tax? Really? Overwhelming support by British Columbians, but what they want is they want to know that they have tools available to them to help them reduce the amount of carbon tax they’re paying. And that is what this budget has delivered through the incentives for transportation and home retrofits.

We also in our CASA talk about the delivery of rebate cheques for British Columbians to ensure they’re better off than under the current carbon tax formula. The rebate cheques — again, you can check that box off — is coming through in this budget, which is a form of a dividend. It’s a lower income amount. It comes in the form of a dividend to low-income British Columbians.

Finally, under CASA, we talk about putting a fugitive price on emissions and, of course, on slash burning. While this is not really within the budget here, there are certainly ongoing discussions about the regulatory framework that Ottawa is bringing into play and how that relates to B.C.

In the question of slash burning, when I come to talk about forest fires, this is one of the things that we need to get our hands on. We’re still not there yet in terms of our discussions with government, but that fuel is wasted fuel. It’s also fuel for forest fires, and at the same time, we’re dealing with certain mills that are struggling for access to fibre. So there is a bit of a triple win here: fewer forest fires, more fibre and getting the stuff out of the forests as well.

As I mentioned, we made a submission — well, many people made submissions to government…. We asked government to show a commitment to CleanBC, and in our submission, we asked specifically that CleanBC be fully funded. We asked for comprehensive and ongoing funding for a clean growth strategy for buildings, transportation and industry. We asked for investment in electric vehicle infrastructure and increased incentives for British Columbia to switch to EVs and other zero-emission vehicles.

We asked for a focus on the modernization of B.C. Hydro to support innovation. I’ll come to that in a second — innovation not just in terms of how we produce electricity, but also how we invest in the future, how we transport and actually use electricity too. I’m pleased to say that the first two of those were actually delivered on. We still have some work to do to convince government with the phase two B.C. Hydro review — we’ve got phase one — that it needs to relook at the mandate of British Columbia Hydro.

I remain troubled by the cancelling of the standing offer program, which has led to a rather large liability that government is incurring in terms of people who’ve invested millions upon millions of dollars to enter or be part of the standing offer program now being told that that program is a wash. There are certainly liabilities that the government has exposed itself to as people seek damages for that.

There’s also — less fiscal, but goodwill — liability with many Indigenous communities in British Columbia who have formed partnerships with private industry to develop independent power projects in their territory that would actually benefit their community, provide stable long-term jobs that are well-paying. Those, too, are being put on hold and cancelled.

We have some work to do in this regard, and my colleagues and I are committed to do that work — to bring the information to government to ensure that they see the wiseness of continuing to move down the path of independent power projects, but doing so in a manner that reflects the current market value of energy. There is no way you would put out a call for power at 35 cents a kilowatt hour in today’s market. However, a call for 8 cents a kilowatt hour or even 7 cents would be met and delivered into by a number of clean projects, whether it be wind, solar or others.

We know that in Alberta, we’re getting wind power coming in at three and a bit cents a kilowatt hour. We know that in places in the U.S., solar is coming in below that. We know that with our slightly complex terrain, we can deliver at below eight cents, but maybe not quite as low as 3½ cents. But we can deliver much cheaper than Site C would. Not only that, it is not your money, not my money, not anybody’s money here that’s put at risk with these projects; it is investor money.

One of the saddest things that happened, and this happened under the former government, was that on Vancouver Island, TimberWest and EDP Renewables, a major multinational wind company, as well as a number of First Nations on Vancouver Island wanted to build a $700 million wind farm capacity here on private land, in partnership with Indigenous communities, funded by private venture cap.

Guess what? That fell through because there was nobody they were allowed to sell power to other than B.C. Hydro, and the previous government made a commitment to build Site C to deliver power that we don’t actually need for sometime in the future. So that’s sad. Hopefully will come a point when we can bring back the Canadian Wind Energy Association to British Columbia, after they summarily packed up their bags and left a number of years ago.

Let’s come back to the support for family caregivers in Budget ’19. One of the things mentioned in the budget is that it raises financial support for Indigenous extended family caregivers such as grandparents or aunties to be equal to the amount received by foster parents. This is good public policy. This is really important public policy. It’s consistent with our CASA commitment. CASA, for those listening, is the confidence and supply agreement, which stated the following: “Enhance and improve child protection services to ensure that all children grow up in safe and nurturing environments.” The minister’s mandate letter actually said this: “To provide better supports to keep Aboriginal children at home and out of care. Make reducing the number of Aboriginal children entering our care system a priority.”

My colleague from Cowichan Valley has a large Indigenous community in her riding. One of the things she reports back is that we sometimes look with disdain upon the 1960s and ’70s and the so-called Sixties Scoop that occurred when children were taken and put in residential schools in a number of jurisdictions. What we fail to recognize is a scoop far bigger than actually happened in the ’60s is ongoing in British Columbia as MCFD social workers apprehend child after child after child in Indigenous communities.

It’s got so bad that in some communities, what has happened…. As a means and ways of getting back at someone you’re having an argument with, one of the tactics is to phone up an MCFD operator and report some child abuse in that person’s home so that MCFD come and scoop up the child. This has got to stop.

We’re very pleased with the direction the government is taking in terms of recognizing that Indigenous communities are the best to serve the needs of their children, and government is providing support in that regard. In our submission to government, we pushed for a funding shift towards initiatives that support families and keep children and their families in their communities together. We also argued for increasing funding for Indigenous extended family caregivers, and we also supported increasing funding to community Indigenous-led programs. So we’re pleased, again, that government in this regard certainly responded.

In terms of PharmaCare funding, Budget 2019 states that roughly 240,000 B.C. families’ prescription medication will become more affordable this January because of the $105 million added into the Fair PharmaCare program. Under CASA, the commitment that we agreed, we agreed to develop a proposal to implement an essential drugs program designed to reduce the cost of prescription drugs and ensure that the cost of drugs is not a barrier to health management.

You know, after discussing the opportunity to develop a universal essential drugs program with the Minister of Health, we agreed that targeted funding for low-income British Columbians who could not afford their prescriptions was actually a positive short-term policy that advanced the overall goal of our CASA commitment. If the federal government showed a willingness to engage in the essential drugs program discussion over the next year, we’d be keen to revisit our CASA commitment. But in the short-term, we’re pleased, and we put a tick box again. Thank you, government, for the actions in this very important area. In our B.C. Green 2017 platform, we specifically stated that we would develop an essential drugs program to reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

Let’s go to education. For us, this was our single biggest priority in the 2017 education platform. We recognized that if a society wants to lead in the 21st century, education must be its number one priority. We must equip the next generation of youth-cum-adults in our society with the tools and skills that they have to excel as innovators in the new economy.

We’re pleased again with what budget 2019 does — $550 million investment over three years for public education, which includes $58 million for a classroom enhancement fund, mandated, of course, by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. And there’s $31 million for independent schools. But a total of $423 million is now allocated annually, and that’s over 4,000 teachers, 700 special ed teachers, 160 teacher psychologists and counsellors hired, or will be hired, since 2017.

This is actually exactly what needs to be done. We need to ensure that children in development years, the key years of development, have the tools and skills and services available to them to actually allow them to succeed. We should no longer have a society where the lottery of birth determines your future direction in that society.

You know, I’ve heard tell that many people want independent school funding to be cut and argue to put that into public schools. But I like government’s approach here. This is something that we advocate for. You don’t improve public education by going to war with the independent schools. You improve public education by making it the envy of one and all so that there’s no need for independent schools to actually be there to attract people outside of the public education system.

This is how many jurisdictions operate. Many northern European operations, many European jurisdictions, have a system that puts in place a priority of education as their number one priority.

You know, it makes me distraught when I see society as a whole, fed by the anger and the rhetoric of the previous B.C. Liberal administration, turn against teachers and believe that somehow teachers are a problem. No. Teachers go into teaching by and large because they want to serve the next generation. They want to inspire youth, and they take satisfaction from actually seeing people learn. They take satisfaction by seeing a child, struggling coming into their class, leaving their class a little bit better equipped to deal with the challenges they face ahead.

The best thing that can happen to any teacher is to have that child return to you ten, 15 years later and say: “You know what? I remember that class. You may not remember me, but that has improved my life.” That is why teachers go into teaching. They don’t go into teaching to become millionaire stockbrokers. They go in because they value the importance of education. When we start to turn public attitude against teachers, we’re at the very base of our society.

There’s a reason why one of the most esteemed professions in most northern European countries is the teacher. The people recognize, as part of who they are, that education is the foundation of any successful society. Why is it that the happy index across the world invariably puts the top nations as the northern European nations? Because citizens get the services they need when they need it. They graduate. There is a more equitable society, and it’s not one designed solely for the 1 percent, who would thrive no matter what. And in many cases, they’re in the 1 percent only because mommy or daddy left them some money, and they were born that way — the so-called lottery of birth.

In our CASA commitment, we agreed to fast-track enhancement to K-to-12 education, funding to restore faith in public schools after a decade and a half of governments that shortchanged, in fact, a generation of students. We talked about priorities for funding include early intervention in health start programs, as well as reviewing the funding model for the K-to-12 system, with a view to ensuring equitable access for students.

While we wouldn’t have done everything the way the B.C. NDP have done it, we recognize that that’s their prerogative. They’re government; we’re not. We’re a minority part of this minority government. We are there supporting their general direction, providing input when we can on various things.

We support the government’s approach to increasing funding for public education. It’s not as much as we would have done. We had committed over $4 billion over four years of new funding for public education. It’s a question of priorities. That, for us, was our top priority. As outlined in our platform, we would have invested more money, sure, but we’ll continue to push this as a priority for government, because we need to do all we can to support the children and youth as they prepare themselves for the future. We look forward to working with government to deliver more education funding in the 2½ years ahead.

Coming to the elimination of student loans. Now, both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens campaigned on eliminating interest on student loans. As of February 19, interest will no longer accrue for students with loans.

You know, previously the interest was charged on prime rates. The cost of this program is $31 million each fiscal year with a one-time write-down of $225 million in this year.

But let’s put this in context. The average undergraduate in B.C. borrows about $11,200. That’s not really fair, because there are a lot of students who borrow nothing, some of whom win the lottery of birth. And there are a lot who borrow an awful lot more. When you graduate with a $50,000 debt from your undergraduate degree, initially you’re stepping off into society hampered with this ball and chain on your back foot for decades as you try to pay that back. Again, what sort of civil society are we if the lottery of birth lets you win no debt in public education and you can succeed. And the other lottery of birth means that you’re stuck with $50,000 of debt when you graduate. But not only that, you’re paying what? Prime 3 percent. Let’s say 3½ percent. So what’s that — $1,700 bucks a year in interest alone before you even get to that $50,000 bucks.

You know, eliminating the interest on the provincial portion will save the average borrower, the average one…. It says $2,300 over the ten-year repayment period. I would suggest it’s actually more than that for the people who actually have the debts, because most people who have debt have larger debt than that.

In our confidence and supply agreement, we state the following: “We recognize that education is about lifelong learning and make post-secondary education more accessible and affordable.” Tick.

We also agreed to implement an agreed-upon approach to improving access and reducing the costs of post-secondary education for students. Two aspects of this have been delivered. First is free tuition for children aging out of care. We had a different approach. We would have given them basic income for children aging out of care until they hit the age of 24. Government chose to give them free post-secondary education. Similar goals and values — you see how this confidence and supply agreement works. Similar goals and values and different approaches. But we recognize the responsibility we have, as three of us. We support that it is government’s prerogative to make these final decisions, but we’re able to contribute to the narrative and discussion about why these decisions should be made in the first place, and this is another example.

To our submission that we made, we followed CASA. We pushed for a strategy to make post-secondary education more accessible and affordable and to reduce the debt burden on post-secondary grad students. Eliminating the interest on student loans is an important step to reducing tuition burden. But wouldn’t it be remarkable, wouldn’t it be amazing if, again, we looked to jurisdictions like Denmark, like Norway, like Sweden, like Finland, like Germany and other European nations that actually recognize that post-secondary education is a right. We don’t want ability to access funds to be a barrier to success in our society.

Again, the B.C. Liberal approach is if you win the lottery of life or you happen to have a corporate friend who can donate you a ton of money to let you, in essence, subsequently win it, you move forward. But if you don’t win the lottery of birth, you’re just out of luck here. You’re just out of luck, and you’re left to fend for yourself.

Here what we’re seeing is a move toward — perhaps not as far as we would have liked to go — recognition that education is important and a right, and it should be accessible to all. So we’re very pleased with the elimination of the interest.

But there’s much more room that can be made here for increasing affordability of post-secondary education, moving forward. We still don’t have in place — yet we need desperately — a needs-based grant, opening up more access to students. We’ve now eliminated debt of the interest. Fine. But we need to have in place a needs-based approach to allow students from low income — those who didn’t win the lottery of birth — to actually be able to attend and afford post-secondary education. At the same time, I personally think the compassionate thing to do is take a look at our loan forgiveness program and determine to the extent that we can actually move a little further in that, make more of the loan a non-repayable loan and less of it as a repayable loan.

Lifelong learning doesn’t stop at K to 12. It doesn’t stop at graduating undergrad. It’s a lifelong journey from the day you’re born to the day you die. And we believe that British Columbians, in a changing economy, need to have access to the services, whether it be education or support services, that will allow them to compete in this changing world. Accessible, affordable education is front and centre in that.

Let’s go to the child care program because, again, this is another shared priority. Government has said here, specifically, that it will continue with the investment it has made in last year’s budget — something like the tune of more than $1.3 billion is going to be invested in child care. There’s a fee reduction program for parents of children in licensed care of up to $350 per month. That’s $4,200 a year, and 52,000 child care spaces now in place.

The affordable child care benefit, which is available to all families in B.C. earning up to $111,000, can save them up to $15,000 per year per child, and $237 million over three years is being allocated to support the creation of 22,000 new licensed child care spaces.

What’s important here and what we know is that the single biggest barrier right now is accessibility of child care spaces. There are two reasons for it: (1) is an inability to actually attract and retain ECEs into the profession and (2) is accessible space that’s actually affordable to rent or have a daycare facility in because of the cost of housing.

The fact that government is creating 22,000 new licensed child care spaces and the fact that government is investing in the training of ECEs is a very important, fundamental step to actually move this forward. Unfortunately, the government….

The budget here doesn’t feature growth in funding after next year. It means that we might be stalling out after allocating a third of the necessary overall investment, but we’ll come back to this next year. Again, government is slowly moving down this path. There are many people who have been able to access the reduced fee of child care services that are singing the praises. There are what? There’ll be 52,000 such spaces. They’re very happy. But there is more to go, and it’s good to see government moving in this direction.

Our confidence and supply agreement stated specifically that we would invest in child care and early childhood education to improve quality, expand spaces, increase affordability and ensure child care is accessible for all families with a focus on early childhood education.

Again, we have a two-thirds box there. That’s well done, again, to government delivering on the CASA commitment, and it’s a key priority to British Columbians. When we made our submission to government, we specifically asked for substantially more funding to be allocated to implementing the child care program in future fiscal years. We wanted government to view this as an investment that needs to be scaled up to reach a target of universal — or at least universal in the context if you can’t afford early childhood education. We’re not there on the universality. We’re not there on even a means-based amount, but the path has been set to get there in a timely fashion. These things don’t happen overnight, and we’re pleased to see the direction government is going in this regard.

Quality, of course, is essential. We need to prepare all children for healthy, rewarding lives and educate them in a thoughtful way so that they are equipped to tackle the challenge associated with many aspects of the society that they grow and develop into.

Coming to Budget 2019 and investments in youth mental health, another key priority vision for us. We supported, in our submission, the establishment of a youth mental health strategy, complementary to but distinct from the development of a broader mental health and addictions strategy. We recognized in our submission that there are unique challenges that youth face, particularly youth as they get into the teenage years into adulthood that we need to address.

One of the key things that we’re very excited to see and one of the things that when I served on the finance committee, and I’m pretty sure they made submissions this year, was government recognizing the good work — no, the exceptional work — that the foundry centres that are emerging across British Columbia have done. We have one in Victoria. I believe the first started in Abbotsford. Kelowna has one. There are a number across British Columbia. We find in Budget 2019 a $74 million investment to improve access to mental health care for children and youth. That’s more foundry centres for 12 to 24-year-olds to bring the integrated youth mental health and addiction services under one roof.

There are also more programs, including in schools for parents and families to support kids, in particularly, in their early years of development. There’s more specialized family care and day treatment for young people that meets their needs.

I heard mention in the throne speech, and I have yet to actually see how it would come out. But it was a point that resonated with me.

Sorry, not the throne speech. The budget speech. Of all the words I heard in the budget speech, the one thing that I remember that resonates with me was the concern about children going to school without food in their belly. How can we, as a society, expect our next generation to learn, to become prepared, if they’re struggling to make it through the day because they haven’t had breakfast and they didn’t get packed a lunch? To see that…

A modern society, one that cares about its weakest, is one that takes care of such people and children. To know that government is taking steps in that regard is very reassuring.

Again, our CASA commitment had words to the effect that we had a shared value about the importance of dealing with mental health and addiction, particularly with youth. Again, we can do a three-quarter box tick on this one and thank government for their attention to this.

The child opportunity benefit in Budget 2019 — this is interesting. It’s interesting for a couple of things. First, let me outline it. The budget introduces the child opportunity benefit, replacing and expanding the existing early childhood tax benefit. The existing benefit ends at six years old, whereas the new benefit takes you all the way to 18. The maximum benefit is 1,600 bucks for one child, 2,600 for two, and 3,400 for three children. These maximum benefits are more than double the maximum benefits under the old tax benefit.

The benefit is reduced by 4 percent for net family incomes above $25,000, so there is a some reduction there. But one of the ways you could look at…. Well, let me finish it. The benefit is phased out for a family income over 80,000 bucks — phased out by 4 percent for over $80,000. A family with one child — a benefit will be fully phased out at $97,500. And a family with two children will have the benefit fully phased out $114,500.

An initial comment here. It would be nice if all these phase-out numbers, whether it be the child benefit or whether it be various exemptions…. If they used the same number…. The access-to-child-care-space one is a different number from the child care benefit. I would see there’s some prudence to actually make these all come together.

It’s a little odd it doesn’t come into force until October 2020. But with that said, some of these things take time to implement and set out. Again, we have a year to set it in. You could argue: why didn’t we put it in next year’s budget? Again, this is not too uncommon to see these kinds of measures come in a year down the road.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Pardon me?

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Ah, so it’s because of the federal government as well. I appreciate that. So the federal government commitment kicks in, in 2020 as well, which is….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Yeah, so we’ve done that — appreciate the comments there. We’ll update according.

The cost is $375 million over a fiscal plan — $125,000 in 2021 and $250,000 in the year after. It will be delivered monthly along with the federal Canada child benefit, as was just brought to my attention. It’s welcome, and it’ll be providing health and well-being for B.C. families.

B.C. now is the second-only such province in Canada to do something like this, Quebec being the other. It’s important, as it actually is dealing with what is an embarrassing issue for B.C., which is the issue of child poverty. We invariably year after year rank at or near the bottom in terms of rates of child poverty in British Columbia.

Again, we’re very excited about this. We should not be a province where one in five children grow up in poverty, despite the fact that we have the strongest economy in the province. This comes back to the words I heard from the B.C. Liberal finance critic. — her somewhat outrageous views about spending, spending, spending.

You know, we have the strongest economy in the country. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Yet we have the highest, or second-highest, child poverty rate. We have some of the worst income inequality and affordability issues.

This suggests to me…. When I listened in opposition, government would say budget speech after budget speech: “We’ll deal with the $50 increase in a housing allowance, or we’ll deal with welfare rates, or we’ll deal with social services when the economy is better and we make more money.” They’ve been saying that for 16 blooming years, and they’ve kept cutting them.

The reality is when the Minister of Finance past had a $1 billion — no, not $100 million, a $1 billion surplus…. Talk about reckless fiscal management, in an election year, no less.

You wouldn’t plan this in your worst management nightmare — $1 billion surplus in an election year. Why? Because they couldn’t manage the books, and they had no idea what was going on in the out-of-control real estate sector. And the former Liberal critic has the audacity to criticize government for a reduction in property transfer taxes. My goodness. My statement to government is: good on you.

We’re one of only, I believe, two provinces, maybe three, that actually have property transfer tax, brought in by Bill Vander Zalm. It’s a regressive form of taxation. The tax is something you want people to do, which is actually buy and sell homes, to move up and down as they get older and then get really old, as they age into bigger houses and then down to smaller condominiums. We want them to do that.

Government has recognized that this was unsustainable, and they’ve moved revenue sources away from the B.C. Liberal revenue source of property transfer taxes obtained through nefarious activity. We find out today, in question period, that in B.C. you get a tax credit. If you want to come and money launder in B.C., the B.C. Liberals will give you a tax credit to do it. Heaven forbid. Unbelievable that we find that out today in question period.

Coming back to what we believed in our submission…. We argued that children need the strongest possible support early in life. We are a party that believes in intergenerational equity. We’re a party that believes in prevention, a party that believes in investing when people need it, so that you’re not paying reactively down the road, when they’re using social services. You try to avoid the need for them to get there down the road.

We believe that children should not be living in a province like ours in poverty. It’s just wrong. It’s wrong at such a fundamental level. We call ourselves a civilized society, a modern society, yet we have 20 percent, one in five children, in this province living in poverty. That’s B.C. Liberal economics at its finest, representing their 1 percent donors and ignoring the 95 percent of this province who struggle to make ends meet day in, day out.

Budget 2019 also addresses environmental stewardship, but one of the submissions that we made, that we would suggest has not been given the attention we hoped for, which is a challenge for us moving forward to continue to advocate for this…. This is with respect to the issue of environmental stewardship.

The funding for habitat and species protection in the budget is, frankly, underwhelming. We know that wildlife is facing increasing threats. There are endangered species that are…. We’re still waiting for that legislation. We understand it’s in the works. Some species, like the steelhead — this is the Kamloops steelhead area — or the caribou stocks in some areas, are not going to make it another year. So there is a problem here, and some of our province’s cultural identity is close to becoming extirpated in some areas and extinct in others.

We believe that we have a significant responsibility for environmental stewardship for future generations. As I’ve argued, the beauty of our natural environment is one of our strategic strengths. If we want to use it to capitalize on economic opportunities moving forward, we need to protect and preserve it today. Otherwise, it won’t be an attraction.

Look at hunting in B.C. British Columbia has been known for some of the best hunting in the world. The B.C. Liberal approach has been to let free-range development happen willy-nilly, with no assessment of cumulative impacts.

We have glyphosate spraying on freshly cut pine forests in the Interior, killing off the deciduous undergrowth. Then, like deer in the headlights, we stand back and say: “Oh, why is our moose population declining? Why are our forest fires getting so big?” We ignore the fact that we haven’t actually looked at some of our timber practices. We haven’t looked at the fact that we need the aspen and birch to grow, not only as a food source for ungulates but also as fire prevention, fire retardants, to stop the spread of fires through monoculture stands.

Again, this is what we would have hoped to see more of. We believe that we need to have substantial funding for habitat restoration and protection, including the investment of moneys into private land acquisition in particularly vulnerable and biodiverse ecosystems.

It is not okay for government to willy-nilly give out timber lot licences in some of the last bastions of old growth on Vancouver Island, where biodiversity is richest yet is close to extirpation.

This is not okay, because these are Crown resources. They are owned by all of us. They are not owned by a multinational for the benefit of their shareholders so that they can cut what they can and ship it off in the form of raw logs.

We believe that we need better protection and stewardship of our natural environment, and we’ll continue to advocate for that moving on. Protecting endangered habitat is more effective, both for outcomes and costs, than intervening on a species-by-species level after the fact.

We know, for example, that as climate change becomes more severe, biodiversity and old growth ecosystems will be vital to the health and resilience of this province. Moreover, habitat protection, through land acquisition, is an effective interim measure that can be taken to protect species at risk while legislation is being prepared.

We believe that environmental stewardship is an area that was lacking in this budget, and for salmon specifically, we continue to urge government to immediately protect and restore habitat and coordinate a provincial responsibility for fish. One of the biggest problems with salmon habitat is what’s been going on in the streams and rivers across British Columbia. That is low-hanging fruit that we can actually get at through small policy changes.

Coming to wildfires in Budget 2019, Budget 2018 included a $72 million investment to support wildfire resilience and recovery efforts in communities. Budget 2019 provides an additional $111 million over three years to strengthen B.C.’s efforts to prevent and respond to wildfires and $13 million for forest restoration in areas damaged by disease and wildfires.

The Liberal critic, who’s completely out of touch, in my view, with what’s going on in this budget, suggested that somehow this is money that’s used to suppress fire, to fight fires. This isn’t money to fight fires. This is money used to ensure that, actually, forests are resilient to fires. This means dealing with things like glyphosate spraying. This means like dealing with underbrush. It means like getting slash off the cut field. These are policy changes.

Wildfires, you can always fight wildfires, because government has access to funds when it needs them to respond to disaster at government’s will. Again, this funding is additional funding, which we’re pleased to see.

We actually would have done more, and our submission suggested that we should do more. We spent $560 million fighting fires in 2017. By last August, the province had already spent close to $274 million in direct firefighting costs, more than four times the budget of $63 million.

We also know that climate change threatens every aspect of life in this province and that government must recognize this threat and allocate the appropriate resources to address these foreseeable and unavoidable natural disasters.

We advocated, for example, for: increase investment in wildfire prevention and mitigation; emphasize forest resiliency through improved landscape management, with the goal of reducing wildfire size, speed and destruction; and prioritize the funding for the following recommendations in addressing the new normal.

When I say the…. Addressing the New Normal: 21st Century Disaster Management in British Columbia is a report that was recently issued. In these recommendations, we saw some that we thought were critical priorities that we argue should be funded.

Number 31 in that report: collaborate with First Nations to integrate traditional ecological knowledge with western science to ensure risk modelling is built upon greater understanding of the land base, values and practices of First Nations.

We argued that No. 67 needed to be funded. “Create mechanisms to encourage fire prevention activities such as thinning, biomass utilization, targeted grazing, alternate species and densities.”

Number 102 recommendation: “Develop and apply post-fire planting strategies for dry forests that enhance resilience … rather than optimize timber production.”

This is critical. You think that you’re…. Again, this is so typical of a short-term focus that has been put in place by years of that type of thinking from B.C. Liberals. Always think about the immediate short-term neoliberal win.

No. What we should be thinking about is planting for resiliency so that we can actually harvest trees, rather than planting with the idea that if we only plant one species, they’re all going to grow fast, and then we’ll cut them down. Well that doesn’t work. When a forest fire comes in, it clears them all out. Having resiliency as a focus as opposed to optimization of hypothetical timber production is critical.

We also believe funding should be prioritized for the following approach from the Megafires in B.C. report. Number 4, which was “forest restoration and adaptive forest management,” increasing the ecosystem resilience to enable recovery following wildfires. “Adaptation must include restoration and management informed by science and traditional ecological knowledge.”

It’s consistent with…. We’ve heard some positive stuff coming from the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development that he hopes to start looking into forestry. But I come back to this is one of our bellwether industries, one of our foundational industries, one of the industries that made B.C. great — not again, just made it great in the first place. Forestry is an industry that we need to pay a little more attention to.

In the issue of professional reliance and environmental assessment, my colleague from Cowichan Valley had a very personal experience with the flawed nature of the old professional reliance model and environmental assessment approach. Just ask her about Shawnigan Lake. I’d suggest you do that over at least three beers, because you won’t be getting an answer in 15 minutes. She will go over in gory detail the problems that this past process had buried within it.

We’re excited to see both the passing of the professional reliance reform legislation and the revised environmental assessment plan, both of which were B.C. Green–led initiatives in the fall. We’re pleased to see 2019 funds making changes to the EA process and the professional reliance model as well. There is funding for $9 million over three years for implementing the revitalized Environmental Assessment Act, which will focus on enhancing public confidence and participation in the process.

This is the key. Again, the B.C. Liberals seem to have forgotten this. The key to advancing resource projects in British Columbia is to ensure the public trusts the process by which the project is approved. It cannot continue with the old way of doing things.

I’ll illustrate that with what I think is a beautiful example. The old way of doing things is government sidles up…. In fact, it’s still new in the B.C. Liberal mind, because they still haven’t learned that they didn’t win the last election, and they have to change the way they are, or they’ll never get back in this side of the House. The old way of doing things is government sidles up to corporate friend, and corporate friend says: “Hey, I like what’s going on here. What do you think about this idea?” Government says: “That’s great.”

A few donations later and government ends up marketing that this is a great project, and industry says: “Oh, we’ve got government support. Let’s now go into town and market the solution.” So they go into town, and they hire some expensive PR people to actually engage, so-called consult or engage, the town. Each and every time what happens is you divide town. Fifty percent hate the project; 50 percent love it. You pit citizen against citizen, ensuring nothing will happen. Then you go to the local Indigenous communities, and you find one that may support it and one that doesn’t, and you pit one against the other.

Well, I can tell you, this is the B.C. Liberal, the old, way of doing things in B.C. It’s guaranteed to ensure nothing ever gets done.

You don’t ask me. Go and ask the members from the Loops here, and ask them about the Ajax mine — a beautiful example of how not to do something. Again, not to disparage the company. They actually went so far as to provide funding to allow an independent environmental assessment and an independent assessment by the Kamloops Nation. Kudos to the company for actually doing that.

Where the problem was lay in the government’s approach to supporting the company at the wrong time and not letting the company do the good work it needs to do to build something from the bottom up. They wasted a lot of time that they didn’t need to waste if they’d got a sense of the pulse of the community on day one, not after the fact.

Let’s take two examples of how this works: Jumbo Glacier Lake and Glacier Destinations. Jumbo Glacier — in classic B.C. Liberal way, the developer comes up with MLAs. They sit around. “Hey, great idea. Let’s go market it.” The developer gets some little act passed here to allow them to be a municipality that actually has a mayor and council that get funds. They never sat. There are no houses. There’s not even a concrete pad anymore. That at least was there.

That was the way. Of course, it’s mired in courts. Nothing’s going to happen. Indigenous communities were pitted against another, town against town. Typical nothing happens.

Glacier Destinations went to the same architect. The Indigneous Simpcw Nation and the Valemount community together approached the architect and said: “We want this.” The architect said: “Okay, we’ll do this.” They did it. Then — boom, boom, boom — it went through approval process, and guess what the delay was? The delay was government. The delay was government that couldn’t get their act together to actually approve this in time.

The delay was also government in requiring them to build a bloody four-way highway to get people from the airport to the Glacier destination, when they wanted to have a gondola. But government, in its wise ways, knew best as to what the people of Valemount and the Simpcw Nation needed. You need a four-lane highway, not a gondola, not mirroring after the Swiss resorts that they wanted to mirror after. Because government knew best and the B.C. Liberal way.

Maybe they should have made a few more donations. That might have got them the gondola, but they didn’t.

Government was the problem, not the solution in this regard. Fortunately, it looks like it’s moving forward, but this was an example of bottom-up management. That is why we need an environmental assessment process that allows people to build support from the bottom up, to trust that government has their interests front and centre when decisions are made, not the interests of the donors to the political party du jour. That happened to be, for the last 16 years — oh, I shouldn’t say that, because I’m sick and tired of “the last 16 years” — prior to this, a government that had lost touch with the people of British Columbia.

You know, the office of superintendent of professional governance will be established through a nearly $2 million investment over three years. The office will provide for a centralized statutory authority for professional governments oversight to ensure consistent and best practices are applied to the work of the natural resource professionals. All I can say is: “Thank you, member for Cowichan Valley.” I should have said the name, but this was an initiative that she spearheaded and that she drove and that she worked tirelessly on.

We’re so pleased to see government listen and respond, because, ultimately, when you work on shared values, and you work in a spirit of collaboration and consultation, and you work in a spirit of actually wanting to advance good public policy that puts people ahead of vested interest, you can get a lot done. You can get an awful lot done.

Members opposite could get a lot done if they learnt a little bit from that. If they learnt a little bit that this isn’t all a big game here, that actually, there are real people that are affected by our decisions. It behooves them, instead of playing the game day in, day out, to actually provide solutions, advice, areas that we can actually collectively work on, but that’s a foreign notion. I understand.

You know, we would have done things slightly differently, of course. We would have liked to see a restoration of the former commissioner for the environment and sustainability or creation of a natural resource practices board under the Auditor General Act. These are directions that the B.C. Greens, in a majority government, would have gone — for the rationale, of course, that it fulfils, within the well-regarded Haddock report recommendation 31…. That is a cost-efficient way to augment oversight capacity. We believe that that would have been a best way to proceed, and we’re hoping to move in that direction.

We also believe that base funding needs to be restored to ministry staffing levels by about 40 compliance and enforcement staff per year over the next four years, about 160 total. The reason why is directly addressed by recommendation number 34, which said, in the Haddock report, that the offset costs associated with professional reliance failures…. For example, a conservative estimate has put the taxpayer liability amount of remediation at approximately $40 million. We know that investment in prevention saves a bunch of money in reaction down the road.

Again, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It’s the same, whether it be environmental assessments or environmental oversight, as it is with eating an apple every day to save getting diabetes down the road or something. I don’t know whether that’s a good example. Keep the doctor away.

Now, to the economic agenda. Again, the members opposite…. I could have written their speaking notes, honestly, on a napkin over a beer in five minutes. Jobs. Again, members opposite don’t even understand how jobs work. It’s not about jobs. People don’t want jobs. They want careers. They want to know that they can actually work in a profession that they trained for, for an extended period of time. This isn’t about building a bridge and then laying everyone off afterwards. It’s about sustained economic activity.

While we may have housing construction down a little bit, to think that the norm was the ridiculous out-of-control money-laundered-fuelled speculation in building luxury condos that sat vacant, to think that that is somehow good economics, to think that somehow is leading to a resilient, sustainable economy. Is there any wonder that the former Minister of Finance had a billion dollar surplus? They had no idea what they were doing. They were just making it up as they were going along, and money was laundering in. They saw the revenue coming in from the gaming revenue and the start to build programs based on shaky gaming revenue and property transfer that’s being flipped through these multi-million-dollar homes that nobody is living in. It’s good economics stewardship.

What the members opposite missed in their response to the throne speech was that CleanBC was not an environmental plan. It’s an economic vision, one that they seemed to have missed for the last four years that I was in office. And despite that, if you speak to leaders in the tech field, they’ll attest to the fact that the tech industry in B.C. has thrived — and the words that they use are — “despite the B.C. Liberals.”

Because they had to struggle uphill in an environment that was set, a culture of “it’s pay to play” B.C.” — and small entrepreneurs don’t have a lot to pay to play — one in which the regulatory environment for tech entrepreneurs was top-heavy, and one in which the only signal government was giving was one that if you want to do business in B.C., somehow it has got to link into LNG somewhere.

It was so much so that government interference was going down into the education system, at post-secondary institutions and in K to 12. In fact, they actually used the words, I kid you not, that they wanted to re-engineer the education system. How Orwellian can you get? That is what we had to deal with moving forward, and that is why I’m excited by this CleanBC economic vision for British Columbia.

Again, British Columbia will never compete with jurisdictions that just dig dirt out of the ground, because they don’t internalize the same social and environmental externalities that we do and care about. It costs more to dig up dirt in B.C. versus, say, in Namibia. It costs more because the land is more valuable. We pay better wages. We value our environment at a level that…. At least the people value the environment. And it’s sometimes a little more costly.

So how do we compete? Well, we could follow the model of the B.C. Liberals, which is give-away-the-resource and race-to-the-bottom economics. Or we can say: “No. The way we compete is through innovation.” We compete by being smarter, more efficient and cleaner. We compete by capitalising on our strategic advantages, those being, as I mentioned, boundless access to renewable energy; an educated, highly skilled workforce; and the natural beauty that allows us to attract and retain the best and brightest from around the world.

But again, in order to capitalize on these strategic strengths, you have to protect them. You have to protect our access to renewable energy. You have to protect our natural beauty. And you have to protect, nurture and support the people of this province to ensure that we continue to provide an educated workforce moving forward.

At the core of the opportunity embodied in CleanBC is the harnessing of innovation that supports new ideas and the creation of new technologies that improve the life of British Columbians. Because British Columbians, if there’s one thing I can tell you, are innovators and problem-solvers, and we have some of the best and brightest here of anywhere in the world — because they want to live in this beautiful province.

Now, government has made huge strides to bring resources to the table in CleanBC. It’s made huge strides by adopting that — coupled with Innovate B.C., the emerging economy task force. The focus on things now is for the government getting at the table for the digital supercluster. We’re starting to see programs federally start to streamline a little more closely with programs provincially, thanks to the good work by Alan Winter, our innovation commissioner. I’ll address that more.

While government has made huge steps, the next step is to make a similar commitment to innovation policy in the province. So innovation, ultimately, is where our future economic opportunities will come from. We know that this government has some important key steps with $50 million bucks going into enhanced high-speed Internet activity in rural areas. I can’t underestimate how important this is.

An example that I gave a couple of years ago, when I was standing on the other side as a lonely independent MLA — elected as Green, but status independent — was the issue of Prince George. Prince George is a bustling northern community. It is a hub for northern expertise. It has got a world-class university. But unfortunately, it does not have broadband redundancy. It has two high-speed lines in, both owned by Telus.

Now good on Telus for putting in those lines. But no multinational is going to move to Prince George and set up shop there if they’re beholden to Telus for their broadband. It’s just a crazy business model. You want built-in redundancy.

A $6 million investment to connect Prince George to Chetwynd with broadband would bring in the redundancy that Prince George needed to allow it to attract the likes of Google, to allow it to attract the likes of the BMWs of this world, to allow it to attract the New Age industries that require, as a fundamental aspect of doing business, access to broadband.

The previous government thought that highways meant nothing more than… We even heard it in the critics today. “We need to pave the Trans-Canada Highway.” The much-tired former Minister of Finance is coming up spouting the rhetoric line of: “We need more highways.” Well, let’s talk a little bit about highways.

I recognize that politicians who’ve been in this place for 20-odd years are stuck and have run out of ideas, and that’s all they can think about. But in the new economy, highways…. When you ask people under the age of 40 what they think about highways, they think about information highways. They think about access to information at high speed.

We know that the speed of light is not a barrier to access to information. What is a barrier is access to broadband and, in particular for bigger companies, there is redundancy. So if we want Prince George to have the investments by Google, by perhaps Telus or others, why would Google want to go to Prince George now? It wouldn’t. But why is it they built a factory, a big data storage centre, in Corvallis? Because they could.

Google is a company that wants to brand itself as a clean, new economy company. They wanted to have access to clean, renewable power. Oregon can give them that. B.C. could as well. They want access to the world through high-speed Internet. Oregon can give them that. B.C. could not give them that in Prince George.

What B.C. had that no other jurisdiction could match was, actually, a colder climate. We know the single biggest cost in data distribution centres is cooling. If you had a data distribution centre in Prince George, you would save on cooling costs substantively. And you wouldn’t have to worry about the speed of light, because it’s threetimesten⁸metres per second. That’s pretty fast; not a barrier for information travelling on earth, frankly.

Again, years of banging my head against the wall, trying to get government to recognize the importance of investment in broadband, particularly for rural hub zones like Prince George — nothing. But here we see an investment coming in, $50 million to enhance high-speed Internet access in rural areas. That is perhaps the single most important investment this government has made in this budget for innovation distributed across our budget. Kudos to the government for this.

There’s also $5 million in annual funding for an expansion of the technology training program. There’s funding to support the expansion of tech spaces at post-secondary institutions and, of course, CleanBC and its focus on harnessing new, innovative technologies and finding solutions that will allow us to increase efficiency and decrease emissions.

You know, we can look to examples of how we compete by bringing our technologies together with our resource sector. There is no reason why Kamloops and Prince George are not major centres of innovation in resource technology coupled together with our traditional sectors. These should be hubs, North American and worldwide hubs, for that, because people can afford to live in Prince George and Kamloops. It’s cooler there. You can store data there cheaper. Give them broadband, and you can access the world.

We also have resources there. You can’t make resources move to tech, but you can have tech move to resources. Why is it that Canadian forestry companies buy our technologies from Finland, buy our software from Finland, from Sweden, from Norway? Why aren’t we developing it here, because we can and we should.

What we need is a government to recognize that sustainable economies are ones that are grounded in the strategic strengths of your jurisdiction, and I’ve already articulated what those are.

In our CASA commitment, we had a major piece of our 2017 platform embedded within CASA. That was discussed earlier. We had the innovation commissioner. We had representatives who help our technology sector compete nationally and internationally through the innovation commissioner. We’ve got the emerging economy task force.

One of the things I hope government over the next little while starts to contemplate with the emerging economy task force is getting them to stand back and to reflect about perhaps a new way of looking about our taxation system. Let’s call it a tax shift.

Presently we have a very weird kind of tax system, one that’s kludged together over many years of adding pieces on top of pieces. It’s quite regressive in many aspects, less regressive in other aspects. There are ways to get the emerging economy task force to actually think about: what is a tax regime in British Columbia — big picture thinking — that actually recognizes that as we move forward in the new economy, it will be more towards a gig economy. We recognize that more and more people will have more and more jobs over the course of their lives. Their careers may be in the same area, but they might have to relocate a little more.

We know that these are changes down the road. We know that the disparity between those who have and those who don’t have is increasing. We also have countless examples in human history as where that ends up. I can tell you, very simply, each and every example of where income disparity grows has led to one solution, which is a revolution and the collapse of that society. Frankly, I don’t think we want to have that here in B.C., so let’s get a handle on this sooner than later, which is exactly what government is doing.

We, in our submission, obviously supported this. We had tons of things to submit in this area in terms of efficiency and cost internalization policy suggestions. We’re looking forward to continuing to work with government in the coming years to establish this agenda.

Let’s go to an analysis that I think is important here that is often not done, and it goes back to my previous statement about perhaps we can get the emerging economy task force to stand back and take a look at our taxation system here and what we’re doing.

Let’s take a generational analysis to this budget. What do I mean by that? We know, for example, that this budget has not been looked at through the lens of an intergenerational-generational analysis. We know that less than 20 percent of the new investments in the 2019 budget go to people under the age of 45, a group that represents more than half the population. So less than 20 percent of the budget targets more than half of the population, and that half of the population is largely the population paying taxes, working. Many of the older population have retired. And it is a population that is under 45 and represents over half. Only 20 percent of your money goes there.

The vast majority of the funding — a billion dollars or so, not well articulated in press releases — goes to education through the Ministry of Health. You know, I don’t have a problem with health funding. I think, obviously, we need to relook at the way we deliver health. But one of the things that I would suggest is continuing to throw more money at the system without standing back and reflecting on the system is not a healthy way forward.

I do appreciate some of the work done by the Minister of Health, who’s looking for a more kind of community-based approach to have health care centres. That might need new money, as we transition to that, as you start to do slow changes. But this wasn’t well articulated in the overall press release and budget documents, that so much money was going to continued funding of health care.

Health, of course, doesn’t start with medical care. We tend to put all of our money into reactionary measures, as opposed to proactive health promotion. My favourite example of this, it’s a tragic example, is the issue of harm reduction in terms of naloxone treatment and overdoses. We had, under the Liberals — Minister Lake deserves a lot of credit — a very effective program of harm reduction introduced in B.C. when the number of deaths from opioid related diseases went through the roof. However, we didn’t stand back and say: “Why are these people taking drugs in the first place, and what is their pathway to recover?”

We all know people…. I have a cousin who’s a firefighter who resuscitated the same person multiple times in a day. It actually leads to real problems for those first responders who are feeling a sense of hopelessness as they are dealing with these people who have fallen through the cracks in our society. There’s no prevention strategy and no pathway to recovery. So what we see in this budget which, again, is something that I think deserves some praise, is steps towards dealing with the mental health and addictions at the youth and early childhood ages, which is important. Also, critically so, is the investment in the K to 12 system, particularly in the support that children in their critical years of development. We think that you actually should view that through a lens of prevention, a health care view of prevention, and the pathway to recovery still has some work to be done.

In conclusion, you can tell from my general tone here that while there are obviously challenges and opportunities ahead, we believe that this budget has some pretty incredibly important measures in the short term, as well as setting the stage for some of the longer-term successes. CleanBC, government is not shirking away from its responsibility here. It’s funding CleanBC. It sees it as an economic vision, as opposed to a purely environmental vision. It’s one that’s got support, broad support, from NGOs outside of government.

But the work doesn’t stop with the introduction of CleanBC. The work will require us to continue to maintain vigilance to ensure that we remain on track to recognize that this is an economic vision.

It requires vigilance to ensure that the support mechanisms are there, that the messaging is clear, that when you’re building schools that are being funded through this budget, you’re seeing this through the lens of CleanBC.

You don’t build a school today to save a million dollars today that you could save in three years through a little bit more spending to ensure that you have operating cost reductions on the long term. A little bit of investment today, viewed through the lens of CleanBC, leads to prevention, leads to long-term cost savings and is actually exciting for innovation because everybody wants to be new and innovative, and they want to get behind the kinds of opportunities that you see in CleanBC.

We wish there was, of course, some more generational analysis for that. We continue to advocate for that. We would suggest that moving forward, we’ll continue to look at this through the lens of generational funding.

I know that youth don’t vote, but we are elected to represent everybody, and it really behooves us to start focusing a little more on that generation of people who actually have to live the consequences of the decisions we made, most of which we don’t actually have to live the consequences of. It’s kind of a good position to be in and why so many politicians think more about re-election than they do about the policy that’ll be in place for a generation to come, because the next election is all many care about.

What matters is history and how you’re judged in history as somebody who set the stage, moving forward, for the next generation. It’s like you can ask any teacher. Their success is not judged by what they do in the classroom. Their success is judged by the success of their students, and they take recognition and reward, personal reward, by seeing their students succeed. It should be the same for every one of us in this room.

We succeed judged not by our tasks we do today but by what we leave behind for the next generation of people in British Columbia. On that regard, I think government is moving in the right direction. As the world changes, we’re ensuring that our economy is changing, and our government is adapting to these changes. We’re seeing government making the right investments and moving in the right direction. And frankly, I’m entirely encouraged by the spirit of hope and collaboration in which CleanBC was put together.

I’m looking forward to working in this regard to ensure that it is successful, that the economy responds, diversifies and positions British Columbia as leaders in the new economy, the economy of tomorrow. Others around the world will look at us and say: “Look at B.C. We want to emulate them. They have the best education system in the world. They’ve got it all. They’ve got the best environment in the world. They’ve got the best education system in the world, and they have opportunities for everyone, whether you win the lottery of birth by being born into a wealthy family or whether you happen to have not been born into such a family.”

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you so much, and I look forward to further deliberations on this budget.

Today was Budget Day in the BC Legislature. This is the second full budget announced by the BC NDP minority government. The government’s 2019 budget provides clear evidence that the B.C. Greens’ participation in this landmark minority government has been a success in advancing its values and policy priorities.

When I rise tomorrow to speak to the budget, I will provide a more extensive analysis. Below is the media statement we released outlining our initial reaction.

---

Media Statement

---

B.C. Green influence evident in 2019 budget priorities
For immediate release
February 19, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – The government’s 2019 budget provides clear evidence that the B.C. Greens’ participation in this landmark minority government has been a success in advancing its values and policy priorities.

“We are pleased the B.C. Green Caucus’ impact on this budget is so evident,” said MLA Andrew Weaver. “By funding core B.C. Green initiatives, including CleanBC, professional reliance reform, and increasing affordability for students, government demonstrates the value of our voice in a minority government.

“I have been pushing government to prioritize the wellbeing of British Columbians, their economy and their environment since I was elected almost six years ago. CleanBC is not just an investment for today, but for our future as well. The investment of almost $1 billion over the fiscal plan goes a long way to putting us on track to meet our targets.”

Advancing the policies in the Confidence and Supply Agreement has been a unique challenge, but the 2019 budget takes meaningful steps forward on numerous caucus priorities. The B.C. Green Caucus values being able to work collaboratively with government.

Other B.C. Green priorities that have been funded in this budget: support for family caregivers, Pharmacare, education, childcare, and investments in youth mental health.

The announcement of the B.C. Child Opportunity Benefit is also a positive step forward, providing support for the health and wellbeing of B.C. families.

“The B.C. Child Opportunity Benefit will positively impact B.C. families and aligns with our values of intergenerational equity and proactively promotes the health and wellbeing before they find themselves left behind.”

There are also welcome advances in the relationship between government and Indigenous nations with the agreement on revenue sharing advanced in this budget.

However, the B.C. Green caucus would have invested significantly more in environmental stewardship to ensure future generations have the same opportunities and security that we do.

“Funding for habitat and species protections is underwhelming. Our province’s wildlife is facing increasing threats, and to ignore the plight of endangered species like steelhead is more than shortsighted; it is dangerous to the economy, environment and our province’s cultural identify.

“Preparing for the future will continue to be a challenge. We know that climate change threatens every aspect of life in our province. Government must recognize this threat and allocate funding to address the unavoidable increase in natural disasters. From wildfires to flooding, we must aggressively fund our emergency response network and plan on emergency funding needs in the year to come.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature I rose to give my response to the Speech from the Throne. As I noted yesterday, while I am pleased that the Throne Speech recognized the important work that has been achieved on the priority initiatives outlined in the Confidence and Supply Agreement between the B.C. Greens and the BC NDP, I am concerned by the apparent lack of broader vision.

Below I reproduce my response in both text and video.

It turns out I was one of only five speakers who spoke in response to the Speech from the Throne. After I spoke, the BC NDP were supposed to put up a speaker but that speaker failed to show up. After some kerfuffle, Steve Thomson from the BC Liberals rose and delivered an address. The BC NDP failed to put up a speaker after Steve Thomson finished and the Throne Speech immediately went to a vote. This is unfortunate as neither of my colleagues Adam Olsen or Sonia Furstenau were therefore able to deliver their speeches which were scheduled for tomorrow.

---

Text of Speech

---

A. Weaver: Thank you, and welcome to the new position as Assistant Deputy Speaker. It gives me great honour to speak as not the first but the second person, under your oversight.

I thank the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for his remarks. I must say, somewhat cynical in the remarks, but I understand that. I do share some of his concerns about the throne speech, and I’ll come to that in more detail later.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Peace River North suggests that I’m cynical, too, but I beg to differ with the member.

I am the designated speaker. I know members opposite are looking forward….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: You hear them groaning in delight, but the member for Vancouver–West End is quite excited by the words to come.

Let me start, please, with thanking my staff in the Legislative Assembly for helping us, in the B.C. Green caucus, do the work that we do day in, day out. Without their support, we would not be able to be prepared for issues like this, speeches like this.

I’m very grateful to the work of the staff, both in the Legislature and the constit office as well — and, more generally, the people in this building, whether it be the guards, in the cafeteria, the people who clean, the people who take…. Or even Libby, who’s now upstairs somewhere ushering people into the gallery.

You know, it must be tough for these people to work here knowing that there’s a cloud over this place. Let it be said that we are very grateful for the hard work that they do, and we’ll all move beyond this. So thank you to the people who work here.

And to the public service in general. None of these bills that we’re going to debate in the upcoming session would be possible were it not for the hard work by the public service. Let me tell you, it is my experience that British Columbia has the best and brightest from all across Canada in our public service. I say that because it’s one of our key strategic strengths. It is the quality of life in British Columbia that we can offer people, which is why we can attract and retain some of the best and brightest.

It’s also one of the reasons why we have an affordability issue. People choose to live in B.C. because it is a lovely place to live. Great economy. Great weather, except for the last couple of days. Wonderful people. Friendly, relaxed atmosphere. And never a dull moment in the B.C. Legislature either. Lots to do here in British Columbia.

Finally, to the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I thank them for entrusting me as their representative in this place. I have countless meetings with constituents, and I do appreciate the ongoing feedback that they give. Thank you to them.

Now to the throne speech. Let me start by saying that I’m pleased that the throne speech did recognize the important work that’s been achieved on a number of priority initiatives outlined in our confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. NDP. That agreement, written a couple of years ago, basically put in writing our shared values, values that, collectively, we wish to focus on as a condition of our support in this minority government. Values with respect to affordability. Values with respect to putting people first — education, child care and so forth.

In particular, in this throne speech, one of the things that I think is critical, at least from my perspective, is that it highlighted the importance of CleanBC, a framework that will guide British Columbia as we respond to the challenge and yet realize it is but an opportunity. That is, the challenge of climate change is actually an economic opportunity.

Let’s be clear. CleanBC is not a climate plan. CleanBC is an economic vision. It’s a vision for the economy of British Columbia grounded in innovation, grounded in clean energy and grounded in positioning British Columbia as a leader in the new economy. It’s the B.C. Green vision. It’s a vision that we recognize is what is needed to position British Columbia as leaders in the new economy.

We will never compete with our traditional resource sectors if we continue to do more of the same. We can’t compete with Indonesia. We can’t compete with Thailand in terms of just digging dirt out of the ground. The reason why, of course, is that they don’t internalize some of the externalities that are so precious to us: environmental externalities, social externalities, standard of living externalities.

It costs more to dig dirt out of the ground in B.C. than it does in other jurisdictions, so we won’t compete head-to-head unless we continue down the path of race-for-the-bottom economics, which I’ll come to shortly — a card that the B.C. NDP have taken from the Liberal play deck but actually taken to a whole new level. We’ll come to that moving forward.

The way we compete is by recognizing that we have to be smarter and more efficient. You can’t grow the economy just by doing more of the same. You grow it through efficiency. What does efficiency mean? It means that when we dig the dirt out of the ground, we do so in a manner that is cleaner and more efficient. As such, we can actually export not only the dirt and the minerals that arrive but also the technology and knowledge that has been acquired in the development of efficiency measures.

I’ve referenced many times, in various speeches, an innovative company by the name of MineSense that developed sensing technology in bucket face that can actually take rock at the rock face and actually determine at the face whether it’s economical to ship that rock to the crushers or whether it should be put aside for fill later.

That is being smarter. That is being more efficient, because not only can MineSense then mine mines in B.C. and compete internationally, but there’s technology that is B.C.-based — internationally leading technology — that we can export. Not only export, we can actually send our people there to other jurisdictions to showcase some of these technologies.

And, it saves money. It saves money because less water is used in the crushing process, which is cleaner. It saves money by not having to worry so much about the backfill. So these are the kinds of technologies that we need to position ourselves.

Forestry. Probably the single most important industry, historically, in British Columbia. Forestry — hardly a mention in the throne speech about forestry. A few words, but hardly a mention. Yet our opportunities for innovation in the forest sector, whether it be through value-added, with people like Structurlam, an incredible CrossLam and gluelam manufacturing company based in Okanagan Springs and Penticton. My friend from Penticton is not here. Amazing company. B.C.-based technology….

R. Coleman: Okanagan Falls.

A. Weaver: Okanagan Falls. What did I say?

R. Coleman: Okanagan Springs.

A. Weaver: I’m thinking beer. The member for Langley East correctly pointed out that I said Okanagan Springs as opposed to Okanagan Falls. Clearly, my craft beer senses were…. I was getting thirsty, I think.

Anyway, a company that has built CrossLam and gluelam, that led to the highest wood-constructed building in the world — UBC’s 18-storey student residence. Our beautiful Harbour Air — CrossLam and gluelam projects.

This is where we have opportunities for innovation. We talk about building schools and hospitals — lots of that in the throne speech — but we’re not talking about building schools and hospitals that showcase innovation and allow us to position ourselves as a leader in the new economy.

Each school and hospital that’s built is an opportunity for innovation. We can build a bunch of brick walls and hammer some drywall together, or we can recognize that by spending a little more now — it may not even be more, in fact; many would argue it’s the same cost or even slightly less — we can save in the long term through operating cost reductions in terms of heat and so forth.

So I really think that we need to recognize that CleanBC is a plan, an economic vision, for British Columbia, one that is grounded in our strengths as opposed to chasing the weaknesses of others.

You know, this year’s throne speech also referenced some very important investments in child care, education — addressing affordability — and improving transportation services. These clearly are important issues for British Columbia.

Likewise, we know that wild salmon have an immense cultural, economic and ecological value for British Columbia. I’m glad to see again that this was recognized in the throne speech. We can thank…. A lot of good work on this area came from my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, whose advocacy for wild salmon led to the establishment of the Wild Salmon Advisory Council last year.

With the work of that council now complete, I expect — and I’m sure my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands will insist — that government will get to work and actually start implementing the recommendations, starting right up front with movements towards habitat protection and restoration of critical streams — salmon-bearing streams —across British Columbia.

We often focus on overfishing, we often focus on fish farms — important things to focus on — but what we tend not to focus on is habitat destruction of the streams to which these salmon return. And that is critical in British Columbia.

With that said, with the good in the throne speech, I do tend to agree with my friend from Kamloops–North Thompson that the throne speech looked a little bit like each minister was given a memo and asked to provide a couple of sentences about what they would like in the throne speech, and a rather disjointed potpourri of issues and items and things are slapped together in the throne speech, missing, critically, a broader overall vision as to where this government would head.

Now again, I do have some troubles with that, because I listened with interest in question period today as the Transportation Minister went back to the tired narrative of saying “you didn’t do it for five years.” At some point, government needs to recognize that they’re government now; they are not in opposition. And when you’re government, it does not do you any service to blame someone for not doing something five years ago.

You’ve had two years. We’ve been talking about ride-hailing for two years. You actually promised that it would happen last year. It hasn’t. You’ve actually promised it would be one of the things you would do immediately when government got elected. It hasn’t. This is what we look for from government. We look for leadership, we look for a vision, and we look for no longer passing the buck and blaming.

Just as the B.C. NDP were tired of the B.C. Liberals turning around and referring back to the decadent era of the 1990s, I’m a little tired, honestly, of hearing about the last 16 years of the B.C. Liberals. Let’s move on. I think some of the B.C. Liberals never get tired of hearing about the last 16 years.

An Hon. Member: I loved those 16 years.

A. Weaver: Some of them actually loved them.

I really want to talk not about the last 16 years or, heaven forbid, the 1990s. Like, the 1990s? I was in Montreal in the 1990s — not relevant to me.

An Hon. Member: Most people left B.C.

A. Weaver: Most people left B.C. I was one of these people who left B.C. in the early 1990s.

Let’s get on with what we’re going to do now. What is the vision that is actually driving the narrative of the throne speech? That, sadly, I think, is missing. A throne speech that tries to be all things to all people all the time ends up leading to contradictory legislation. It focuses on short-term policy instead of long-term outcomes.

We start ending up doing things like campaigning hip and knee replacement lineups. We know that that’s important, but we also know that the people over the age of 65 are typically those who need hip and knee replacements, except me. I’m under 65, and I need one.

Nevertheless, if you’re looking for short-term wins, so-called quick wins, that you can campaign on and say, “Look, vote me back in. I’ve done something that makes a real difference in your life,” you campaign and you start talking about hip and knee replacement lineups. What about the structural issues in our society?

What about thinks like the new economy? What about thinks like transportation? What about a broad, poverty reduction strategy that we’re still waiting for? These require much more careful, detailed analyses and thought, frankly. We should have seen much more of that articulated in this throne speech.

We basically had a throne speech that reminded me of one of the last B.C. Liberal throne speeches, which was quite full of self-congratulatory messages, quite light on details about what will be done — but smatterings of very populist things like cell phones. What are we going do with cell phones in B.C., given that we have no jurisdiction in the area?

Transparency in the bills. Well, I would suggest if you go on your Telus account or Rogers account, all the transparency you want is there. The thing is that troubles me is I spend 400 bucks a month on cell phones, and that is a lot of money. I think that’s a lot of money for the average person. That’s because I have my own personal cell phone as well as the Leg cell phone and never the twain shall mix, keeping public and private stuff separate.

CleanBC was highlighted in the budget. This is good. I’m glad that it is. But it made me worry when immediately, as if the last breath of CleanBC went out and the next breath starting talking about LNG…. I’m looking forward to the LNG-enabling legislation that we may be getting. I’m looking forward to see whether or not the members opposite will believe that they should support this increasing level of generational sellout. Because I tell you, we’ve made it very clear for more than a year now that the B.C. Greens will not support any enabling legislation for this generational sellout.

What is going on with LNG, in case people haven’t realized, is the B.C. Liberals recognize that in a global market, it’s really tough to compete with the royalty structure we had in place. So the so-called deep-well credits were extended to, in essence, long-drilling credits, horizontal credits, so that in essence, all natural gas exploration was subject to very, very enticing credits, tax credits for the proponents. Petronas accrued an awful lot of tax credits with it, because it had a lot of investment in upstream fields. They brought those into the LNG Canada partnership.

So the B.C. Liberals recognize that we’re not going to make any money from the royalties. We make a lot from leases, but not so much from the royalties. So what they plan do is they plan to make money down the road through the LNG income tax. The idea is when companies were making money, B.C. would start making money too.

Now, the NDP have signalled out that this is…. They want to get rid of that. They want to get rid of the LNG Income Tax Act, but I suspect they’re going to need to keep a little tax credit portion in there. That will be interesting to see, how that plays out.

To give you a sense of the kind of head-shaking moment when the B.C. Liberals gave away the natural gas, they at least required LNG proponents to use electricity in the compression of natural gas if, and only if, they’re going to get the industrial rate of about 5.4 cents kilowatt hour. In classic B.C. NDP economics, they decided that that’s too rich.

They exempted that So now natural gas can be burnt to produce electricity to compress natural gas. Well, here’s the joke on that one. They’ve given away the resource upstream because of the royalty structure and the credit structure. Now LNG Canada has access to natural gas, which is our resource, the people of British Columbia’s resource, that they can burn essentially for free to compress natural gas. That couldn’t have happened under the B.C. Liberals. This is part of the generational sellout of the B.C. NDP on this.

It’s really quite mind-boggling that they would think that actually on the one hand, they could talk about CleanBC and in the next breath, on the other hand, start talking about LNG. Let’s be very clear. CleanBC is an exciting economic vision that only takes us to 75 percent of our reduction targets. There’s a six megatonne gap. Guess what. Four of that six megatonnes would be from LNG Canada if that were to go ahead.

It’ll be interesting to see as we move forward with this — to watch government work with the official opposition to see if they can deliver this. We’ll be watching here with great interest as we have a race-for-the-bottom chase, to see who’s going to actually give our resources away the most. Will it be the Liberals? Will it be the B.C. NDP? Or will it be the Liberals supporting the NDP?

You know, one of the other things in the economic opportunity associated with CleanBC, of course, is recognition in that plan that economics, the economic opportunity, and ecological stewardship go hand in hand. Never is that more obvious than with things like wildlife preservation.

We know, for example, with the willy-nilly approach we have to natural habitat destruction in this province, we end up creating problems for ungulate populations from north to south and east to west because we’re putting in roads, logging roads. We’re disturbing the land. These ungulates can’t find a safe place. They can’t get away from the predators.

We spray glyphosate. Like, on what planet do we do this to suppress the deciduous undergrowth in certain areas of logged pine forest? And we’re surprised that ungulate populations are suffering. This undergrowth is both food for the ungulates, but also it’s easy for them to escape through the deciduous undergrowth that’s growing.

We seem to think it’s economy here or climate change there or ungulate saving over here. We don’t view, in this province, things as a whole. We don’t ask and stand back: what is our vision for prosperity for this province that protects that which makes our province great — which is our environment — that accesses our resources which we’ve been blessed with in a manner that’s sustainable, that actually is not race-for-the-bottom economics but builds prosperity locally and ensures that we’re not only harvesting resources, but we’re building value-added and shipping technology and the resources and the value-added to other jurisdictions?

We seem to think, in British Columbia, that somehow we’re magically going to stop shipping raw logs away to other jurisdictions. Well, not with our timber licence system. We’re not going to change anything. If I’m up in Fort Nelson or some jurisdiction and I’m a big multinational and I own the licences for timber lots, I harvest them when I feel like or not feel like.

If I harvest them — there’s no appurtenancy anymore in B.C. — it’s to my advantage to avoid softwood lumber or to not have to internalize those externalities and ship those logs to U.S. mills or to Asian mills for value-added. That’s wrong. But there’s a role for government here.

When we look at Vancouver Island mills, we ask the question: why have these not retooled? Why is it that we’re the only jurisdiction that continues to harvest its last bit of old-growth forest? Community after community after community in British Columbia is seeking to have old growths on Vancouver Island protected. But our mills can only process old growth, and the second growth or the hemlock or the other species get shipped raw elsewhere because we haven’t retooled.

There is a role, actually, for government to provide incentive to allow mills to retool so that they can process the wood that we’re shipping elsewhere. They should do that, but there is no vision. There’s no vision in this throne speech to do that.

It’s just a laundry list of various things. ICBC. We have self-congratulatory issues on ICBC. I would suggest that we need to take a step back and ask — to use the words of the Attorney General, this dumpster fire — is it salvageable? Where is the big-picture thinking of this? What about the potential of allowing competition? Should we not be having that discussion here? What about no-fault insurance? Should we not been having that discussion? It seems like we want to have a private insurance, but we don’t. We want to have a Crown corporation, but we don’t.

Again, it’s messed up, because instead of thinking about what’s good public policy, we end up thinking about what’s in it for our stakeholders. LNG. Cell phone costs are covered. Payday loans. Really important — payday loans. But again, it’s a shopping list. It’s an item that’s great. Let’s pass the legislation. Move on. You’ll probably get no discussions here. It’s hardly a substantive issue in the throne speech on which to hang your hat on. Ferry fares. Okay, we’re keeping them fixed again. Fine; fine.

But why aren’t we talking about shipbuilding in British Columbia? Why is that in Richmond we have one of the world’s leading producers of electric store systems for ferries shipping those systems to Poland, to Norway where they build the ships and use these ferries? Why is it that we feel that it’s not…? Why is it that our shipbuilding industry is hurting here? Why is it that we’re not recognizing the opportunity for innovation in our shipbuilding sector in places like Nanaimo or places like Victoria or elsewhere, where we recognize that there are really only three classes of vessels that we need in British Columbia — small, medium and large?

We know that there are about 30 vessels in the B.C. coastal fleet, and we know the lifetime of a vessel is about 30 years. It’s a no-brainer that we should be having a self-sustaining shipbuilding industry in B.C. where we bring in and service out the ferries. As we bring them in, we build one. We know one is coming off. That’s called a self-sustained economy. That’s an economy grounded in innovation, and it’s missing it, because there’s no vision — no broad vision in the throne speech.

You know, gaming revenue. So the fact we’re even getting excited about gaming revenue is basically getting excited about a plight that affects some of our poorest people. When we start to build social programs based on gaming revenue, what we’re really saying is those people who can least afford it….”Thank you very much for this tax on the poor. We’re going to take it, and we’re going to use it to give services to the poor.”To me, this is very troubling.

Daycare. I’m very pleased, of course, very pleased with the announcement in the government about the daycare. However, again, we’d like to see a more integrated component of daycare with the school system, with K-12, because daycare really shouldn’t be viewed just as care but also education. One of the things that does excite me are some of the partnerships that have been going on with school districts across British Columbia.

We’ve got some PharmaCare.

The train corridor. Okay, that’s kind of a vision. But it’s not a vision B.C. is going to pay for. If it’s going to happen, it’s going to be U.S.-led. Working with Washington State on innovation. Okay, that’s great. If you’re going to work with Washington and Oregon to build a tech hub area, you gotta have something that you’re taking into the negotiations, not just: “We are here too. Let’s be part of this.”

What is the plan? What is the vision for B.C.? What is our vision? Broadband for northern communities. Great. But what’s the vision there? Just put some broadband in? Is there some vision? Why are we talking about LNG? Why isn’t government actively going out, trying to get industries like Tesla, like BMW, like others to build their manufacturing facilities in Terrace, in places up in the north that are on the rail line between Prince Rupert and Chicago, the gateway to Asia and the gateway to eastern U.S. This is how we build prosperity. It’s by diversifying economy away from our traditional narrative of only being hewers of wood and drawers of water. That was the opportunity missed in this throne speech.

As I said, sure. Most of the items in the throne speech are good, important. But they’re not illustrative of a comprehensive vision or strategy for how the government can and will tackle the enormous challenges we’re facing in terms of growing income inequality and, frankly, some of the environmental threats that face us.

I feel a little bit like I’m on the Titanic trying to urge our captain to change course so we avoid the icebergs — the same icebergs that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson suggested were melting at a very slow pace. I would suggest to him that they’re melting faster than he thought, anyway, so we can avoid the icebergs ahead. Instead of charting a safe passage, the captain turns to me and starts telling me about the dinner specials in the dining room. He offers me a free ticket to tonight’s show. That is not what we want in a throne speech.

Short-term perks are fun and shiny, but I’m gravely worried about the future of the health and safety and security of British Columbians.

With CleanBC, we had a map for how we could avoid some of the threats on the horizon while at the same time building a prosperous economic future. But it needs to be followed through urgently and in its entirety, and I look to the budget to ensure that in fact we see that happening.

To come back to my analogy with respect to the Titanic, the Speech from the Throne makes me worried that the captain is going to take the CleanBC map and say, “Great. We’re saved,” and get busy changing light bulbs, without touching the steering wheel. Even worse, now the captain is looking straight at the LNG iceberg and hitting “accelerate.” Again, it’s not that the pieces are inherently bad in the throne speech. The problem is how they’re scattered, with no structure to them. We’ll not tackle the problems we all care about if we fixate on symptoms, and not the actual system that created them.

For example, the issue of the fentanyl crisis in British Columbia. Without a doubt, every single member in this House is concerned about the preponderance of deaths — lately, often men between the ages of 30 and 60 — at home. These are not your typical homeless street people. These are people who are partying on a weekend. We’re seeing numbers, growing numbers, of deaths in this area.

Our response, collectively, is to go after the harm reduction, issue naloxone kits to everybody and stop people from dying. Great. Harm reduction — wonderful. But we know that when you just only focus on harm reduction, there are times when you’re resuscitating the same person multiple times a day. We don’t stand back and ask the following question: “Why is it that these people are here in the first place, and what is the pathway to recovery?” An approach, taking this throne speech, would be like: “We’re going to give you naloxone kits.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast suggests that it’s not right. I would suggest to him: show me in the throne speech where we have a discussion of the systemic issues that have led to the problems we have today.

I would suggest, as a working hypothesis, that we’ve cut kids’ support services, at their critical years of development in the K-to-7 system, when they needed it most. We’ve cut the child psychologists; we’ve cut the speech pathologists; we’ve cut the assistants. We’re now dealing with the social consequence of those cuts, a generation later, and we still don’t have a pathway to recovery. We don’t have that in place.

We’ve had a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions in operation for two years — for two years — and I’m still waiting to see an overall vision and direction for that ministry to actually tell us how that pathway for recovery is going to go. It’s not just opening a clinic here or opening a clinic there. It’s: “What is your plan and your strategy to actually get us out of this problem into the future?” Two years is a long time. You can’t blame the previous government anymore. It’s time to actually show us what you’re made of.

You know, because of the government’s lack of vision in the throne speech, let me see if I can’t offer something up that might be something that we could hang our hats on. As we know, the B.C. Green caucus, the three of us, got into this business of politics because we felt, each of us, that many of the decisions we are making here are really fixated on short-term goals. We’re not thinking about the long-term consequences of our decisions. We’re thinking about re-election.

How many people in this place have been here for greater than 15 years? An awful lot, frankly. Stay tuned as I bring in term-limiting legislation in a couple of weeks, because this place needs some change. We should not be having people sitting in this place for 30 years or 20 years. What value-added are you bringing to here when all the life that you’ve known is this building? It becomes a sense of entitlement. You think that you know how things work. This place only stays relevant if it is rejuvenated. It only stays relevant if we get new ideas coming in. It only stays relevant if we start bringing in these new ideas from across the province and if they’re listened to.

Unfortunately, many of these are not actually happening. I look at government now, and I look at the past government. The power brokers in this government have been here since the 1990s, in some cases, and many of the power brokers in the opposition have also been here in the 1990s. The rest of us might as well go home, because it’s the 1990s Liberals arguing with the 1990s B.C. NDP. Who’s losing out? It’s British Columbians. It’s time for us to actually clean this place up. I’m looking forward to working with my caucus colleagues and others here to do just that as we see a rejuvenation in this place.

We got into this, as I said, because of our concern about the fact that we’re overlooking some of the longer-term problems that we somehow think, by wishing they weren’t so, would go away — issues like income inequality, a growing income inequality. We have many, many examples in human history of what happens when income equality….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Did I just hear that correctly?

A. Weaver: Did I hear that correctly? One member, whose name shall not be mentioned, just noted it was 4:20. I suggested that….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’ll just leave it at that.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I won’t get too high and lofty over that one.

Anyway, coming back to the issue of some of these defining issues that are much broader, we just assume that if we ignore them, they’ll go away. We assume that income equality, which has been growing over time, somehow will take care of itself.

As I pointed out, in human history, we have ample examples of what happens as income inequality grows. In each and every case, the end is clear. It ends in revolution and collapse. That is a pathway that is not inconceivable.

We’re starting to see the rise of populist movements across the world, whether it be the rise of the Arab Spring. We see the yellow vests movement in Paris, which was about income inequality. You know, some denier-types seem to think it’s about carbon tax. No, it was an income inequality issue.

We see Brexit. We see the rise of Trump. We see the rise of Ford and campaigning with no platform apart from buck-a-beer. This is what we start to see, and this troubles me, if we don’t get a handle on the growing problems.

Coming to government, government promised to put people first. I don’t know how many years I listened to government berate the Liberals for not increasing the housing allowance. We’re waiting. Where are the housing allowance increases? Where are the housing allowance increases from the government that argued we needed housing allowance increases? They’re not there. So really, again, we need to have a little more thoughtful look at some of these bigger problems.

Climate change. You know, we’re at a pivotal point in human history where we can ignore this problem or we could recognize it’s an incredible economic opportunity. We’ve got the foundations of that in CleanBC. But that plan needs to permeate each and every ministry.

I get worried when the architect of that, the Deputy Minister of Environment, Bobbi Plecas, an outstanding civil servant who put her heart and soul into the CleanBC plan — a plan where she had to deal with business stakeholders, NGOs, Green MLAs, government MLAs…. She did a yeoperson’s job, but now she’s no longer the Deputy Minister of Environment.

That worries me, because that shows a change of priorities — that the government is shifting the best and brightest from a ministry that actually led to a foundational economic vision into some other ministry. This is troubling, and people need to know that this is what is going on. Anybody who thinks this government is committed to climate action, needs to know that, in fact, it’s just superficial and surface-layer deep, and if it was not for the B.C. Green caucus, none of this would have happened.

I can say that unequivocally, because you cannot on the one hand….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I see the Minister of Agriculture saying: “Wow.” You cannot on the one hand stand up and champion LNG and for any second think you have any credibility on a climate plan.

The climate plan will take us 75 percent there. Fine. We’re still not 100 percent. Where’s the government’s vision to get 100 percent? It’s not in the throne speech. Where is the government’s vision to implement CleanBC? It’s not in the throne speech. It’s really a government that looks to a box-fixing exercise, and that needs to change as we move forward.

You know, elected officials in here well be held, by history, unkindly, will be looked upon unkindly by history for the actions that we take today. Future generations will look back on this time and look at the people in this room and ask them what they did and why they didn’t do what they did.

They’ll ask one of two questions. They’ll either ask the question: “How did you have the moral fortitude to actually move with this and deal with this and recognize the opportunity that is there and take advantage of it?” Or they’re going to say: “How could you have done this? How could you have ignored the scientific evidence?”

Way too many people in this room — way too many people in this room will fall in the latter category and very few in the former. Sadly, most of those in the former are not in the decision-making capability in this government or in cabinet by itself.

They’re sitting in the back benches, down on the end here. You’ve got your climate caucus down on the end, backbench government MLAs speaking passionately about climate.

I don’t hear it from the caucus, from down in the executive branch. I don’t see it coming from executive branch. I hear good words coming from my colleagues down at this end of the aisle.

We, as the B.C. Green caucus, over the past year and a half have worked tirelessly with government to….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Again, the smug arrogance coming from the member for Saanich South here, I would suggest, is inappropriate. If she would like to discuss this further, I’d be happy to. But let me say: what about some of the promises you’ve made about Site C? This is a member who stood up and told people not to vote for the B.C. Greens because she needed to get elected because she would stop Site C.

Take a look in the mirror, member for Saanich South, and then we can talk a little bit more about hypocrisy and say whatever it takes to get elected.

We have a problem here. We have a government that says one thing and does another. We have fish farms. Again, government said they would take fish farms out. “No, we’re going to talk about it and study it and have a plan for the future.” Haven’t done it. Let’s be realistic. Government says it’s going to do things, but it doesn’t actually do it, and it studies a lot. Government needs to actually get the vision down there and start addressing this vision.

Of these three areas that we’ve worked tirelessly on and will continue to do over the next two years, one is the issue of trust in government. The other is health and well-being, and the third is innovation. I’ll touch upon each of those three.

Let’s start off with trust in government. There is a cloud over this place. Allegations are filling the hallways of this building like never before. We’ve got the Speaker’s report, a 76-page report. We’ve got the government talking about money laundering. I’m sick and tired of listening to the government talk about money laundering. When are you going to do something about it? You have a landing page collecting lots of data, on the B.C. NDP website, and telling people to “sign this petition if you’re against it.”

Fine. You’ve got your data now. What are you going to do about it? We’ve sat for two years, and we’ve talked about the issue of money laundering. Hasn’t been dealt with. I suspect that the political machinations of the powers that be like the idea that this is niggling in the background and makes the B.C. Liberals look bad on an ongoing basis. But you’re elected to govern. And when you’re elected to govern, you take leadership. And we need to see leadership on that money laundering because it has been sorely lacking.

Lobbying reform. This is something that we campaigned on that we got legislation through and passed. We’re pleased to see some of this, but there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done in this area of trusted government.

Standing order reform and electoral reform. There is a lot that needs to be done still.

Let’s come to UNDRIP. Again, good words in the throne speech — good words about UNDRIP — but that was supposed to happen this spring. Now we’re told it’s probably going to be in the fall.

On the one hand, we talk about UNDRIP, and then we talk about the Wet’suwet’en. And we recognize, right off the bat, that we know for a fact that the B.C. NDP decided not to get involved. Instead of showing leadership in government-to-government negotiations, they thought it was LNG Canada’s problem and they should try to deal with the Unist’ot’en Camp and the Wet’suwet’en people. It’s for them to do it. And so LNG Canada does the only thing they know to do, which is to seek a court injunction, and away we go.

That is an absence of leadership. This is a government that missed an opportunity for truth and reconciliation to actually stand with the Wet’suwet’en, to have a discussion on a government-to-government basis, not putting the company to do their dirty work for them. So again, we’ve got a failed history of colonialization in this province that continues to this very day.

Coming back to the well-being of British Columbians, I see a shopping list in the throne speech that misses some of the key things like climate change. You know, we have an IPCC report. I’m so sick of IPCC reports, frankly. But another one says we’ve got 12 years before we’re committed to breaking 1.5 degree. Frankly, I think that’s wrong. We’ve already broken 1.5 degree. The reason why it’s wrong is it didn’t account for the permafrost-carbon feedback, not because they didn’t know how to, but because it wasn’t in the mandate. We know the world has warmed by 1 degree already. We know that we have a committed warming of about 0.6 degree because of existing levels of greenhouse gases. That takes us to 1.8.

We know that the permafrost-carbon feedback gives us another 0.2 to 0.3. We know the world is going to warm between 1.8 and 1.9 degree regardless of what we do today. So this notion that somehow this is a problem down the road and maybe we can get to it, is simply false. It’s simply false, and history will not be kind to those who stand by and watch this happen.

There are a lot of important policies that have happened so far. These wouldn’t have happened were it not for the B.C. Greens here. I know we’re not very good at telling our story. We’ve not been very good at telling British Columbians the effect we’ve had in this Legislature, that the professional reliance reforms are a B.C. Green initiative. The environmental assessment review was a B.C. Green initiative. CleanBC was a B.C. Green initiative. The Fair Wages Commission was a B.C. Green initiative. The innovation commission was a B.C. Green initiative. The emerging economy task force was a B.C. Green initiative. The salmon council was a B.C. Green initiative. Lobbying reform, a B.C. Green initiative.

If we had our way, we would have had ride-hailing in here four years ago, but we’ve got a government that seems to find any excuse it can to delay and to delay, and now today we have allegations coming through in question period that, in fact, there’s a cloud over that as well.

How on earth are we ever going to rebuild trust in this institution if we don’t start to actually declare when there are potential perceived issues and if we don’t actually start putting people first instead of our vested interests first? It will never, ever change, and shame on government, actually, shame on the government for not knowing that this could be found out and recognized, as it was done in question period today. I commend the opposition for their research on that, because that explains a lot to me.

It explains a lot because I sat on the first standing committee on Crown Corporations, and I couldn’t understand the objections that were being raised about class 4 versus class 5 licences. I couldn’t understand the objections that were raised about safety. Has anyone seen the video, the video of the taxi driver who was being pushed up a hill, where a dude was sitting on the hood of the car with his feet on the taxi in front and they were pushing the cab up the hill? Like, safety? It’s a two-way street.

The government needs to really ante up on the ride-hailing, because British Columbians are sick and tired of the excuses. There are no more excuses. Lyft and Uber have been committed to British Columbia. Lyft now owns centre ice in Rogers Arena. You watch the Canucks, you see Lyft. They want to come here.

If it were not for my colleague, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, that legislation that was brought in before Christmas would have guaranteed that no ride-hailing would happen in British Columbia. His amendment to allow the Passenger Transportation Board to have greater leeway in terms of the decision-making was critical, because we know, in talking to Lyft and Uber, they both would have walked if that amendment had not passed.

That was a B.C. Green amendment, despite the government, because government really doesn’t want ride-hailing. I agree with the members opposite. Government really doesn’t want ride-hailing. They have yet to demonstrate a commitment to ride-hailing, other than saying it’s coming later this year. There’s no excuse for it to come later this year, unless government decides that some friends and relatives who need a leg up or a year’s lead to try to get their thing going. There’s no other justification for it, and this is just not right.

I come back to the jobs. I take exception with the fact that members opposite said that they didn’t mention jobs until line whatever. I, frankly, wish they would stop talking about jobs and start talking about careers. People don’t want jobs; they want careers. They don’t want to just go up to Site C and build a dam and then be unemployed. They want to know that they have stable long-term employment opportunities in our beautiful province and that they can live close to where they are.

There is no vision for careers in the throne speech. Frankly, there’s been no vision for careers in the opposition’s comments today. There’s only been a few, and hopefully, they’ll flesh those out as we move forward.

You know, we have right now ongoing in British Columbia a problem that was not even mentioned in the throne speech. We all know about the issue of the residential school era and the so-called Sixties Scoop. We know about those times. What is going on in British Columbia right now makes that pale in comparison in terms of the way MFCD is scooping children on First Nations reserves for, at times, nothing. Mothers having their babies taken away in hospital. The threat of phoning MCFD being used in family arguments to settle scores.

We have a systemic problem in MCFD in terms of the child welfare system and dealing with our Indigenous communities and not allowing their children in these communities to be brought up by the community. We scoop ’em up and think that somehow government is going to do a better job by taking a baby from a nursing mother in hospital and shoving them in some foster home somewhere.

This is a problem. This is what the government was elected to do, to look to look after people, to put people first, not just union jobs on CBA agreements, but people first. That is what we need to get back to, because we forget why we’re here. We sometimes forget why we’re here.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Again, the member for Saanich South…. I will be delighted when the member for Saanich South actually does what she said she would do and starts dealing with the fish farms in the wild sockeye’s migratory paths, because she hasn’t. She’s done the talk — door-knocking, done the talk — but when push comes to shove, hasn’t delivered. And it’s like that on so many files. Talk the talk, but when it’s come to government, not delivering. That’s what we need to get back to.

Housing. You know, our housing has become a playground for the rich, a bank account for international players to park money. One of the things that we supported in the speculation tax was the satellite family notion. It has created all sorts of problems with dubious claims — people should be on title or shouldn’t be on title. This is going to be a problem. I wonder to what extent government is actually monitoring the market, because there’s a very real potential the market is going to go out of control.

The government, in its wisdom, decided that it knew best as to the approach to actually introduce this speculation and vacancy tax. Now, I don’t want to rehash that but with that to say is that it is critical — it is absolutely critical — with such a significant intervention tool in the market that the government is monitoring on a daily and weekly basis what’s going on. Because I can tell you, the prices of houses are dropping. And most people can absorb a ten percent cut. I don’t think there are a lot of people in Vancouver worried about a Point Grey house going down by ten percent.

However, if ten percent turns to 20, turns to 25, then you start to get a problem, and then you start to have an escalation and you start to have houses going under, people walking from mortgages and so forth. So I certainly hope the government is looking at this speculation tax. Frankly, I think it should already be thinking about repealing it. Why do I say that? Because the market is already tempered through uncertainty. Let’s see if they are willing to actually take a look at that.

There are issues that, again, I didn’t see mentioned within the broader area about putting people first — issues with respect to the LGBTQ+ community. You know, health and safety and equality. We’ve got the issues of the sexualized violence policies that are on university campuses. Has there been any follow-up? We’ve certainly heard myriad stories about work that still needs to be done.

We would like to see continuing work, not only to deal with the issues of exploitation…. We have some ideas that we’ll bring forward in a number of private member’s bills this session. But there are very serious safety issues still prevalent within a number of our more marginalized communities, marginalized only in as much as they are a minority and there are people who still exhibit a prejudice against such communities. We will be bringing in some legislation in that regard.

In the area of innovation, coming back to the issue of innovation. British Columbians, by their very nature, are innovators. It is who we are. Some of the best and brightest companies out there are B.C.-based or have started from B.C. I mentioned MineSense. I haven’t mentioned Carbon Engineering or General Fusion. There’s Saltworks. There’s a ton of these companies. What we need to see is… In the throne speech, what we were looking to see and hoping to see was a vision that actually recognized that we have an economy, a diverse economy that should be the foundation of us moving forward, a stable economy that would allow us to actually ensure that companies are connected with post-secondary institutions.

Government seems to be void of an understanding that, in fact, there are companies out there…. It looks like I’ve got a chorus just behind me to heckle me now. Government seems to have missed the opportunity that comes through partnership with industry and post-secondary institutions.

We have opportunities in Squamish with the clean energy program out of UBC, which was an incredible opportunity for government to take the bull by the horns and to work with UBC, the Squamish Nation, the consortium in the Squamish area to get innovation and to get those anchor tenants in there to build that clean energy centre, which is actually a foundation for the economy of tomorrow.

We should be creating spaces in post-secondary institutions — spaces for post-docs, for students, for co-op positions. We should be creating spaces that would allow partnerships with industry, with our innovators. But we don’t. We think education is here and industry is over here and not recognize that, in fact, they’re coupled together and they work closely together.

Our cooperative education policies need to be updated to ensure that students graduate with more hands-on experience. Right now the demand for co-op is unsurmountable. Yet it’s difficult to actually find the positions, and it’s difficult to seek the government to support, to actually provide the value-added opportunities that we need to do. We should be looking at improving efficiency, developing technologies and actually focusing on the value-added.

And government has a role to play also in terms of innovation through the services that it provides and offers. There is, in government, a very incredible innovative group that actually does do a lot of data innovation and things like that. However, government misses opportunities through innovation itself. I look at the CBA agreement. Let’s be clear. The CBA agreements are nothing more than project labour agreements. They’re not community benefit agreements. Let’s stop pretending that they are. They’re project labour agreements.

I understand that project labour agreements are needed for stability in some projects. However, government, yet again, missed an opportunity. It missed an opportunity through the procurement phase to actually send a signal to the market as to the type of direction it would like to see the market go. Instead, government decides it’s going to pick its 17 building trade unions, winners and losers, and say: “What we’re going to do is we’re going to call it a CBA — it’s not a CBA; it’s a project labour agreement — and those 17 unions are the players, and no one else can play.” How is that innovative? That’s not. It’s going back to fight the trade union wars of the early 20th century. Those wars were won. Let’s move on. People are sick and tired of those wars. Let’s move on and recognize that government has a role to signal to the market. Government should signal to the market, and it’s missed that opportunity as it’s moved forward.

You know, we’ve had a bunch of other issues that I could go on and on about. I guess the issue here about ride-hailing is one that hurts. In the throne speech it says this: “This year, ride-hailing will enter the market.” It doesn’t work that way, government. Ride-hailing enters the market if ride-hailing companies want to participate in the market. They don’t enter the market because you say they will. You have to create the regulatory environment that allows them to participate.

Right now, if it were not for my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, Uber and Lyft would have walked. They would have walked from this province before Christmas. And they’re still close to walking, because we have discussions at the table that are simply not relevant to ride-hailing, a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of what the ride-hailing model is — the surge pricing model, the critical aspect of the surge pricing model that allows them to work in partnership with the taxi fleet, which creates a base supply of transportation, whereas the ride-hailing provides surge demand to allow more people on the road when you need it and get them off the road when you don’t.

These are opportunities that need to be properly centre stage through regulation. No more talking about it. Look, if I could write a bill as a private member’s bill three years ago — opposition had an entire package ready for when government shifted; they were just waiting to get through the election — how is it that the government has taken two years to continue to talk about this?

Finally, I do want to come back and say that I am pleased. You know, while I’ve been rather critical of some of the lost opportunities, lack of vision and the kind of shopping list approach that the government has taken in the throne speech, I will say that there is an opportunity before us, and that is through the CleanBC. It’s not just about a ZEV standard. That’s necessary. What’s critical is the electrification of our mining sector, electrification of forestry, electrification of our economy-wide.

But, again, just to point out how I…. On the one hand, government says one thing and on the other, it does another. Right now it’s reviewing the IPP contracts. Now, we recognize that those were extortionate when they were first given out. However, there are many of these small power producers that are going to go under because government is actually not going to renew their purchase agreements. We’ve already had virtually every small energy company in B.C. leave the province because of the reckless decision of government on Site C, despite the guarantees of a couple of MLAs to their constituents that they must vote NDP because a vote for the NDP will eliminate Site C. and that egregious trampling on Indigenous rights and fiscal recklessness in terms of building, in an unsafe environment, a megaproject that’s not needed, which also killed the clean energy sector.

This is a real worry. What’s government going to do? We talk about energy use. What’s it going to do to actually get companies back here? The Canadian Wind Energy Association. They’ve left B.C. They’re in Alberta right now. TimberWest.

I believe it was five First Nations and EDP Renewables who wanted to invest $700 million — not of your money, hon. Speaker, not of my money, but of industry money on Vancouver Island to build a wind capacity in partnership with Indigenous communities on private land. But, no, it’s gone, walked — $700 million gone because of Site C, $700 million of industry money. Instead, it’s going to be $10 billion of ratepayer money.

We know that Site C is going to cause the doubling of hydro rates in B.C. over the next five years. It’s the only way it can happen. We know that cost overruns are going to be egregious. We know the north bank is unstable. We suspect that when they start drilling the diversion route, there will be collapses. Good luck drilling a diversion route through the fractured shale layer. This is yet another example of government not thinking this through.

With that said, there are huge challenges ahead. We will continue to approach our role in this government as one in opposition. We will continue to provide the advice that we think is warranted on bills that we think are relevant. We will continue to offer solutions. We will bring in private members’ bills. We will offer British Columbians an opportunity that could actually bring truth and integrity and honesty back to this place because, frankly, right now, there’s far too much saying and not enough doing: “Do as I say and not as I do.” And that needs to change in this Legislature.

With that, I thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to the comments of others on this throne speech.

---

Video of Speech

---

Today in the Legislature Bill 44, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018 was debated at second reading. This bill introduces a payroll tax to replace the income that is being lost through the elimination of MSP Premiums.

As I outline in my second reading speech reproduced below, the BC Greens have been campaigning to eliminate MSP premiums since 2015. In fact, the overwhelming public support we received on this topic meant that both the BC Liberals and the BC NDP could not ignore it in the 2017 election campaign.

I also point out in the speech below that the BC Greens would have replaced the income through alternate means (a progressive health care levy). Nevertheless, and on balance, in our view the benefits of eliminating the form of regressive taxation embodied in the MSP outweigh the negative effects of increasing payroll taxes.

---

Text of Speech

---

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debates on Bill 44, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018. This bill, as we have heard, is a bill that’s proposing to replace the moneys that were lost in eliminating the MSP premium by a payroll tax applied on employers.

The payroll tax would be at a rate of 1.95 percent for employers having a payroll submitted of over $1½ million. It would be nothing for a payroll below $500,000, and if the remuneration paid by the employer is greater than $500,000 but not greater than $1½ million, the tax to be paid would be 2.925 percent of the amount by which remuneration paid exceeds $500,000. The idea here is to bring the payroll tax in British Columbia to a level similar to…. I think it’s the second-lowest in the country.

Now, I’ve been working on this issue of MSP premiums for quite some time. I’d like to give a little bit of the history of this, but first, let me start off by saying that we as a caucus wholeheartedly endorse the elimination of MSP premiums. It’s something we campaigned on, something we’ve been working on for many years.

We would not have done it this way. We recognize that this is not the approach we would have taken. With that said, we understand government has chosen to do it this way. I’ll outline the process by which this is come to, and ultimately…. In the two-part presentation, my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands will also speak a little bit about some of the impacts that we have to be careful of with respect to medium-sized business — not so much large business or small business, but medium-sized business. I’ll cover much of the history and the rationale for this approach.

Let me say that I’ve spoken to numerous, numerous people on this issue. I have spoken to leaders within the business community. I have spoken to small business, intermediate business. I know that for some large businesses, this is actually viewed as very positive. Those companies that right now have negotiated contracts such that they have to pay the MSP premium for their employees once those employees retire — typically much larger, huge firms that have negotiated that in collective agreements — are very pleased that the government is no longer requiring MSP premiums to be collected. In their case, they see this as no longer having to cover the retired people who used to work in their organization. At least, I’ve been told that by the people I’ve spoken to in that area.

People in small business, despite some of the fearmongering that we hear, are largely unaffected. If your payroll is below $500,000, you aren’t affected. In fact, you benefit, because as individuals, you no longer have to pay the MSP premium.

It’s in the intermediate area that we have to be careful — to ensure that what we don’t do in introducing this is affect the competitiveness of our medium-size industry and affect the ability of medium-size industry to grow in British Columbia. My colleague from Saanich North and the Islands will cover that in more detail.

I brought this issue to the Legislature back in 2015. It was an issue that was brought to me directly from a town hall that I had in my riding with seniors — in the Monterey Centre, no less. The issue that was raised was the issue of health care premiums, and how some of these seniors there were very concerned about the health care premium that they were paying, and how it was not a progressive form of payment; it was a very regressive one-size-fits-all payment. In looking at this, I completely agreed.

Actually, if you go back, you will see that there was a post that I wrote on my MLA blog on January 21, 2015, where I outline some of the regressive natures of the health care premium and the way that it’s one-size-fits-all — in essence, a form of a head tax. It’s essentially a one-size-fits-all approach that had an incredibly, large bureaucracy associated with it.

I outlined in this post some of the issues with respect to the debt that’s incurred. I pointed out, for example….

I knew examples of people who went away to college in another country or another jurisdiction. They might have worked for a few weeks before going there, and their employer might have paid their health care premium on their behalf. Then they went away somewhere, and they were no longer working at this place. They were just students working casual work. They come back, and MSP presents them with a massive bill for all the years they were away.

Retroactively, they were being required to pay for services that they’d never had access to, nor were they actually using, you know, in the case of students who went to Europe. In many of the European nations, the health care would be covered under the essential rules that govern health care — in Britain or France or other jurisdictions — so they didn’t need MSP. Because they wouldn’t use it there.

They would come back after a couple of years away, and there would be the big bill. Now, of course, there were collection agencies starting to get involved. People were getting angry phone calls. This kind of very punitive approach was neither effective nor, in my view, managed well, in terms of requiring an administrative overhead.

Every single month, British Columbians from north to south, east to west, were getting in their mail an MSP bill. It’s costing us a buck per letter to send out these bills every single month. I can’t even estimate what the cost for the mailouts would have been, but I would imagine that it would be large. Every single month, you know, people would open their bills, they’d write their cheques, some would forget, some would defer, debt would increase, collection agencies would come about.

This was a very inefficient system, and inefficiency is something that we as a caucus believe is not in the best interest of good fiscal management and good fiscal policy.

I’m surprised that it has been in place for so long. In fact, a form of MSP premiums has been in place since the 1960s. So it’s not that the Liberals can claim any high road, or, frankly, that the previous NDP governments can claim any high road. Simply, since as long as I’ve basically been following what’s going on in British Columbia — I was a little kid before that — MSP premiums have been in place. They survived government after government after government as a regressive approach to funding health care.

It’s regressive, because it does not reflect your ability to pay. In most of our taxation system, we tend to favour moving towards progressive systems: if I have the ability to pay more than perhaps you do, I pay a little bit more.

In speaking with many, many British Columbians over the last five years, I understand that there’s a willingness in British Columbia for people who have the ability to do so, to pay a little bit more, because there’s a recognition that in a society like ours, it’s important that the difference between those who have and those who don’t have not get too large, because that leads to social instability, and social instability is not good for anyone.

So it’s with quite great pleasure that I was in the budget, listening to the fact that MSP premiums were going to be removed.

But we’ll come back to some of the history of that a little later.

I should say, at this juncture, I am the designated speaker on this file, and I won’t be too long but I might, perhaps, run just slightly over the allocated 30 minutes. I see the member from Peace River South was applauding when I said I wasn’t going to be too long, and I promise that I won’t.

Coming back to 2015, there were a number of headlines going on in news media at the time, picking up our public call to eliminate MSP premiums and to make it into a progressive system as opposed to a regressive system. Pundits started writing. At that time, one of the headlines said: “Advice for the B.C. Finance Minister on MSP Premiums: Listen to the Green Party.” In there, we were given a lot of credit for leading the charge on eliminating MSP premiums. What it said, which I quite liked — and I’ll link to this as I put this on my website later — was as follows: “Perhaps the B.C. Green Party knows more about economics and tax policy than many give them credit for.”

Well, I would hope so because the chair of our policy committee is a senior economist, with more than 30 years of experience in the B.C. government. We have an economic adviser team that is second to none, and we look forward to continuing providing critique on economic plans brought to this Legislature, from an evidence-based point of view.

On February 26, 2015, again, I wrote a piece in my blog highlighting a petition I tabled here in the Legislature on February 23. That petition was 6,662 British Columbians calling on the government to replace the regressive MSP premium poll tax with a fair and equitable option to fund health care services.

On February 26, in the Legislature, I was up during question period. I used the opportunity to ask the, at that time, Minister of Finance whether or not he would empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative and progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged in British Columbia. The minister actually responded that, in fact, it was within their existing mandate to do just that. So on April 13 of that year, I wrote a letter to the select standing committee, seeing whether that committee would be willing to actually to consider exploring, as part of its mandate — it was a sitting committee — innovative ways of reducing the MSP premiums.

I got a letter back from the select standing committee that said that they were not willing to consider that at that time. That’s most disappointing. That was in May of 2015. The response, to say the least, was disappointing. The chair of the committee stated: “They consider only those matters that are referred to them by the Legislative Assembly.”

Given the minister’s response, it didn’t make any sense to me that the minister said it is within their mandate to do this and then the chair of the committee says that it’s not in their mandate to do this because they haven’t been given a mandate.

Well, I was somewhat perplexed as to that. In fact, I was very troubled by the fact that the chair, in the letter that I received, said: “The committee is currently working to identify potential strategies to ensure the sustainability and improvement of our health care system, while ensuring its financial sustainability.” How on earth could the committee be looking at that and not to be considering innovative ways of replacing MSP with other forms of taxation.

You know, I think the B.C. Liberals missed the boat on the MSP premium. This was an issue that was very, very dear to the hearts of most British Columbians. They couldn’t understand why we continued to have this regressive system — the only province to do such a regressive approach. A one-size-fits-all tax, whether you’re literally earning…. Well, it changed a little bit with time. But back in 2015, you’re earning $33,000 a year or $33 million a year — you pay the same amount. That’s not fair. I think British Columbians recognized that that wasn’t fair.

At the time, what we proposed and what we campaigned on was not what governments introduced. We proposed following along the lines of what Ontario does, which was to introduce something called a health care premium. That health care premium would have been progressive. It would have been collected like EI; collected like CPP.

But there would be another thing called a health care premium that, in negotiated contracts with unions and employers, you might have had your employer pay. That amount would be a progressive amount. In Ontario, if you earned under $20,000, you pay nothing a year. If you earned over, I think it’s $200,900 or something like that, you pay $900 a year.

This was a system we proposed to do here because in talking to British Columbians, people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year don’t mind paying a little bit more for health care than those who are struggling to make ends meet.

It’s patently unfair that someone struggling to pay the bills at the end of the week to keep their children in child care, to actually ensure that they have clothes, is paying an amount similar to somebody who has literally bought a Lamborghini on Monday and flies to Paris for a dinner on Tuesday. This was unfair, and British Columbians across our province believe that to be so. I’ll come to some evidence for that in a second in another petition that was brought to the Legislature by me.

In addition, one of the things we argued at the time in 2015 is that British Columbia really has not advocated effectively to Canada in terms of the Canada health transfer. Right now, we are getting between $200 million and $300 million a year less than we should be getting in the Canada health transfer. The reason why is that Canada health transfer is simply based on how many people are in your province.

Now we know if you look at the demographics of British Columbia that our province is older on average than most other provinces. We know a lot of British Columbians, for example, younger British Columbians historically — now they’re working at home — would go to places like northern Alberta, work there and then come back here and retire. We know, for example, that when people are working in a jurisdiction like Alberta or Manitoba or Ontario, they’re working and paying taxes there, and they retire here.

We also know that the amount that you cost the health care system — another way of phrasing it — is the amount that is spent on you as an individual in the health care system is a direct function of how old you are in that….

Well, it’s not a direct function. That’s actually mathematically incorrect. It’s more like it’s exponentially related to how close you are to your final years. You spend a little more than average when you’re very young, and then you spend very little on health care here in British Columbia per person.

But the tail of that is very, very high. At the most we spend on people in health care is in the last years of their life. Yet, we know British Columbians across our province come here from other provinces. They have worked elsewhere, but we are the most beautiful place to live in. With respect to my family who live in Winnipeg, who wants to live in Winnipeg in your retirement with minus-30-degree weather and mosquitoes in the summer when you can live a block from Beacon Hill Park?

There’s a reason why people come and retire here. But the money for health care does not follow them. So what we have been pushing for is government to actively advocate at the national level to ensure that the Canada health transfer reflects the actual real expenses on medicare that is age related. It’s a very legitimate argument. We know people pay taxes elsewhere, and they use their health care in another place. I hope this present government will pick that up, and the Health Minister will continue to do that.

I will give credit to the former Minister Terry Lake who initially did make some steps in this regard. But I don’t think enough has happened. Coming back to the MSP premium, in January of 2016, the B.C. Business in Vancouver, a magazine that is very much focused on the economy, what’s good for business in British Columbia, had an article and the headline of the article was this: “If the B.C. Liberals Reall Want to Cut Red Tape, They Should Chop MSP.”

This was around the time that we were celebrating the soon-to-be-forgotten Red Tape Reduction Day. That legislation brought forward that created along with Douglas Day, Family Day, Terry Fox Day and Holocaust Memorial Day. There’s one more that I forget. We’ve got Red Tape Reduction Day.

But this article was pointing out that we, as the B.C. Green Party, were promising to reform MSP as one of the first things we would do. Again, I outlined the means and ways we would have done it were we given the situation to have a majority in this Legislature which clearly we don’t, since there’s three of us here. But we still are very supportive of the elimination of this regressive tax.

On January 7, 2016, we issued, as a party, another renewed call to eliminate MSP premiums. At the time, I pointed out that the tax is applied to anyone living in B.C. for six months or longer and requires them to pay monthly premiums for health care coverage. While some individuals can apply for premium assistance, these subsidies soon dry up as soon as a person’s income reaches $30,000.

Back in 2000, I pointed out then that the MSP premium for a single individual was $36 a month. And today — today being January 7, 2016 — the same individual pays more than twice that, or paid more than twice that, at $75 a month.

Just since 2010 there’d been a 40 percent increase for a family of three. The new rate on January 1, 2016 was $150 a month, up from $142 the previous year.

So it was very clear to people following the budgets brought in by the previous Liberals that at least over the last half-dozen years or so, MSP premiums were viewed as an indirect way of taxation without actually increasing personal income taxes. What was so regressive about that whole approach was that the taxation was precisely that: regressive. Picking on people who are making ends meet is not something British Columbians supported.

It was reflected in, I think, some of the minds of people going to that decision on ballot-box day as to who they voted for. They felt it was important that this tax be eliminated. It was campaigned on and promised by both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens. The B.C. Liberals had campaigned on…. And they did. They reduced it by 50 percent, and the NDP kept that in place, so credit to the B.C. Liberals on that. However, it was clear that this is something that British Columbians wanted to be dealt with sooner than later.

On February 11, 2016, in this Legislature, I had the distinct honour of presenting a petition that had been put together by a woman named Michelle Coulter from Ucluelet that had 65,721 signatures on it. That’s an awful lot of British Columbians. They were calling, again, on the B.C. government to abolish the regressive approach to collecting MSP premiums. As the petition stated, it said B.C. should follow the lead of other provinces in eliminating its flat-rate MSP premiums.

You know, even in February of 2016, in the throne speech, the B.C. NDP, at the time, suggested an amendment to that throne speech. We were debating the amendment. That was the B.C. NDP added the following words, “that the government recognize the cumulative effect of the increases in MSP taxes, hydro rates and ICBC premiums and other fees and hidden taxes, on British Columbia families. ” Those words were added after. It says that we ask “‘the Speaker do now leave the Chair’ for the House go into the Committee of Supply.” I guess that would have been the budget, amending the budgetary speech.

I supported their amendment, but added a second subamendment at the time. One of the things I added was…. I was grateful to the B.C. NDP, who supported this subamendment, which was to say and to add on to that “And in order to ease the burden facing these families, support rolling the currently regressive and unfair MSP premiums into the income tax system in a revenue-neutral manner to create a progressive health care levy.” That was the amendment, supported by the B.C. NDP.

It’s not what they’ve done. They have taken it down the payroll tax. Again, our approach was to do the health care levy, which would have gone in the income tax system, as I outlined earlier. Again, I would have suggested that it was….

I was surprised, actually, given the two parties that are currently sitting on this side of the aisle — although one of them is in government, one is in opposition — that the now opposition didn’t listen to the people of British Columbia, who were really calling out for this. This was a no-brainer — good, important piece of public policy to go after a regressive tax that’s mired in red tape, because of the collection aspects of it, that was disliked by all and sundry, that was more efficient to get rid of.

I cannot understand why the B.C. Liberals did not campaign on eliminating this regressive tax. Frankly, I think it was a strategic error on their part. I look forward to them supporting this now to say that, in fact, maybe this isn’t how they would have done it either. This is not the way I would have done it. This is not the way they would have done it.

But I tell you, if the government is going to eliminate MSP premiums, we have to weigh out the benefits of elimination with the negative aspects of what they’re doing to get the revenue. On the balance of things, I cannot disagree with government that on the balance of things, the benefit of eliminating this regressive taxation outweigh the way the negative effects…. There are real negative effects with medium-size business.

That is something that I can support, and I hope the members opposite support it, not just say no for the sake of it but recognize that what they’re doing here in supporting this bill is supporting British Columbians — people, regular people, people who are paying every single month, the payment, whether they can afford to or not.

They have an opportunity here in the House to stand up and support this legislation, and I certainly hope that they do. Even though I recognize, as they probably do, that this is not how I would have done it.

In 2017, governments changed, and the B.C. government announced that it was establishing an MSP Task Force. The mandate of the task force was to provide government with advice on how to replace lost revenue when MSP premiums were eliminated. The task force issued its final report on March 31, 2018. The problem with that is, in the February budget, instead of waiting for the MSP Task Force recommendations, the minister outlined exactly how it was going to replace the tax.

Now, I understand it’s difficult in budgetary discussions. You can’t start consulting widely and having leaks about what you’re exploring. And I understand that government vowed to eliminate MSP premiums right at the get-go. And I understand that if you’re going to do that you have to find where the lost billions of dollars are going to come from.

But what I don’t understand is why government would have created a committee just for the sake of it, and then had it go through a process, when it had already decided what had been done. I think that’s most unfortunate, because some of the recommendations of that committee are things I can get behind.

Tax on sugary drinks — there’s a health cost. That’s about taxing behaviour that you think that might have a cost with it. There’s a health cost to our society from a preponderance of sugary drinks being drunk, and a little tax on that might have been something that government could have got behind, if it listened to its task force.

A small employer payroll tax might have been part of a package — well, it was part of a package — recommended by the committee, smaller than is done here. Perhaps some personal responsibility as well. A small adjustment in terms of either through a levy or an income tax rate could have been done.

As I said, I still haven’t really got a satisfactory understanding as to why the Minister of Finance would’ve rushed into doing this or would’ve struck the committee beforehand and, essentially, moved forward without listening or waiting until the report was done.

You know, we have comments directly in the MSP Task Force report that say this: “A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several competitiveness challenges.” The report also said this: “We feel that it is important that revenue be replaced by a combination of measures in order to best mitigate the negative impacts of each.”

As I said, the only conclusion one can reach is that the Minister of Finance either read the MSP Task Force interim report but chose to ignore its key recommendations or rendered her decision to implement the employers health tax prior to the interim report actually being available. I suspect it’s more of the latter, in light of the fact that budget deliberations are often done in the fall and must be done in a confidential environment. Still, it’s most unfortunate.

On May 17, 2018, I stood again and rose and asked a question on medical service premiums. I asked again about the savings the province was going to realize as a direct consequence of eliminating MSP, and the answer I got from the minister at the time was that it looked like it would save about $175 million annually. So that’s a good thing.

In eliminating MSP premiums, we often get focused on the costs, and we often tend to ignore the savings. Well, maybe we can celebrate this, this year, on Red Tape Reduction Day. That savings of $175 million is a very real savings in red-tape bureaucracy inefficiency — good conservative fiscal economics.

It’s a real savings of having to mail out monthly bills. It’s a real savings of no longer requiring collection agencies to chase after past debt. Although I’m still unsure as to what government’s going to do about the existing debt from unpaid bills. That might be something to explore at committee stage in this debate.

Coming back to the support of this bill. We are faced with the following challenge. This is not how we would’ve done it. We understand that government is moving forward and piling all of the costs on a payroll tax. We unequivocally support the elimination of MSP premiums by replacing a regressive into a progressive form of taxation.

What we would rather have seen, as I mentioned earlier, is one that attached a bit of personal responsibility in there, a health care levy along the lines of what was done in Ontario, one that had a progressive amount attached to an individual’s ability to pay.

That’s not there, but we are but three MLAs in this Legislature, with government on one side and Official Opposition on the other. In each and every decision we make, we must render an analysis of the benefits of going with or the costs of going against.

As I outlined earlier, the benefits of eliminating this form of regressive taxation outweigh the costs that are going to occur or the problems that will arise by piling that on to a payroll tax. In essence, that payroll tax isn’t going to go…. It’s still going to be the second-lowest in the country, and my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands will explore that a bit further in the next debate.

We did that balance, and I really sincerely hope, for once, that members opposite in the Official Opposition stand back and ask the same question. On balance, if you put a scale there…. We recognize this wouldn’t be how you’d do it. It’s not how we’d do it. Do you really think it is better to eliminate the bureaucracy and red tape of this inefficient tax, this regressive tax, one that piles on all British Columbians…? Do you think it’s really worse to actually…? Do you think it is better to eliminate that? Or do you think it is better to vote against this bill, recognizing that that tax will still be the same as it is?

It’s a soul searching issue, and I really hope they do think about this. Think about this, not from a “Oh, we’re going to try to score it with our friends,” but from an actual governing sense — not just complaining and saying no for the sake of it.

Think about governance here. We are elected to govern in this province. We are elected to make tough decisions. Can they actually stand up and recognize that this isn’t the way they would do it, as we are? We recognize this is not the way we would’ve done it. But we’re going to support it, because, on balance, people in British Columbia are better off.

I don’t know that they can. This will be very telling in the debates ahead, whether, for once, we can actually have a debate in this Legislature that puts people first — people — in a fair manner that eliminates a regressive approach with one that is still progressive but not one that we would do.

Let’s see what happens over the next coming days. I sincerely hope government and opposition and the Third Party can stand united on this. I would love to stand there with the opposition and say: “No, neither of us would have done it this way, but we recognize it’s the right thing to do at this stage.”

---

Video of Speech

---

Shortly after reading a Member Statement outlining Bonnie Christie’s story about the trauma she experienced as an ICU nurse at BC Children’s hospital, I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Labour when he will ensure that the presumptive clause for work-related mental health disorders will be applied to nursing.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

---

Video of Exchange

---

---

Question

---

A. Weaver: Mental disorders incurred from job-related trauma are serious injuries that can be debilitating. Last spring this government introduced protections by adding a presumptive clause for this kind of workplace injury. Now certain first responders are supported for injuries that can arise from the important work they do.

While I’m pleased that B.C. is extending protection for some workers, I’m concerned that others who suffer mental disorders on the job are being left out. In particular, I’m profoundly troubled that professions, such as nursing, teaching, social work, 911 responders, that employ disproportionate numbers of women when compared to men are being left out.

When I raised this issue this past spring, the minister stated that he shared my concern and was committed to every worker getting the help and safety they need. What has the minister done — to the Minister of Labour — to deliver on this commitment?

---

Answer

---

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member for the question, and I really want to thank him for his passion about workers’ health and safety, because I do share that passion.

I must say that I’m proud to say in this House that as one of the first actions as a minister, I changed the WCB act to make it easier for the first responders to access benefits for those who are suffering from mental health injuries, because first responders have been asking for these changes for a long time.

They were ignored by the previous government. We couldn’t ask them to wait any longer.

Bill 9 also, as the member mentioned, enabled me to add other groups of workers and provide them with better protection. That’s why I am meeting with all those groups of people that the member had mentioned, including CUPE, the nurses and dispatchers, about how to add them onto the list.

But I also understand that workers suffering from mental health injuries need help now. That’s why changes are being made at the WCB right now. With additional staff, more mental health claims are accepted now, in a timely fashion. Support is provided to them as and when they need it because this is in view that health and safety is my number one priority. I will continue to work to make all workplaces in B.C. the safest in the country, and those who are injured at workplaces are treated with respect and dignity.

---

Supplementary Question

---

A. Weaver: I might suggest to the minister when he asks how to make such changes, it’s quite easy. It’s through order-in-council. So I would encourage the minister to direct that passion that he talked about to actually ensuring that the workers are given the protection that they need.

For example, a few moments ago, I read the story of registered nurse Bonnie Christie. Her doctor filed a WorkSafe BC claim and referred her to a psychiatrist who confirmed the diagnosis. But the WorkSafeBC process to evaluate her claim took four months and made her relive the traumas time and time again.

This is what Bonnie says:

“The core problem I had with WorkSafeBC is that nursing isn’t one of the occupations that presume mental disability because of work trauma. To get my claim accepted, I had to retell my story over and over to WorkSafeBC” — a story that I told you a few minutes ago. “Every time I retold it, I relived what I went through. During that time, I was crying all day long and had so much anxiety I couldn’t leave the house.“

My question is to the Minister of Labour, when will he ensure that the presumptive clause for work-related mental health disorders is applied to nursing? The trauma Bonnie has experienced is no different — no different — from the trauma that is experienced by firefighters and police officers, professions that are dominated by men, not women. The Nurses Union has provided the evidence to the minister. It’s time for the minister to act. When will he act?

---

Answer

---

Hon. H. Bains: I must say that, unlike the previous government, health and safety of workers is my number one priority. That’s why we made the changes. I’m so proud of those changes, and we realize more needs to be done.

The legislation was our first step. It allows me to add other groups of workers onto the list. That’s why we are actively working with those, and I will be meeting with nurses later on today who will be providing me with more evidence of why they should be added onto that list.

So we are actively working with those groups. But WorkSafe is working with those groups right now by adding more staff and helping those people suffering from mental health injuries. I just want to say to the House here as well, that every worker in this province is entitled to mental health coverage through WorkSafe. We are adding more resources to help them as we go forward.

But I am working with nurses. I am working with other groups so that we can add them onto that list to provide them better protection. I want to ensure that all workers go home after the end of their shift safe and healthy.