Today the BC Green and BC NDP caucuses celebrated the one year anniversary of the signing of our historic Confidence and Supply Agreement.

The Premier and I took the opportunity to celebrate the event at the offices of Alacrity Foundation in Victoria. This was a fitting venue since Alacrity represents a stellar example of innovation in the new economy.

Alacrity has helped bring over $225 million to B.C.’s technology ecosystem through its investor readiness program and on April 19, 2018, the Province announced that it was investing more than $711,000 over the next three years in the Alacrity Foundation of B.C.’s Cleantech Scale-Up program.

Below I reproduce the brief remarks I gave at the event as well as our joint press release.

My remarks

I am delighted to be here to celebrate the one year anniversary of the announcement that we had reached a Confidence and Supply Agreement with the BC NDP.

The 2017 election was historic for our Party. We doubled our popular vote count and tripled our seat count.

When the results came in as a minority government, we felt an enormous weight on our shoulders. We took our decision very seriously.

In the end, we decided BC needed a change. It was clear that most British Columbians wanted things to be done differently.

There was a clear desire for bolder, forward-looking policies on a range of important issues:

affordability;
environmental protection;
investments like child care and public education that will give our children the best possible future.

CASA is the result of two distinct parties coming together around shared values.

Ultimately we want the same thing:

to improve the health and wellbeing of British Columbians;
to make government more responsive to the challenges and opportunities they face in their everyday lives;
and to set our province up for success.

There have been ups and downs in the first year, but like any relationship our Agreement has required us to work through our issues and come together to find solutions that we can both support.

This is a special opportunity – under majority governments, a party can get 100% of the power with as little as 39% of the vote and push through its agenda without having to consult or collaborate with any other parties.

This has often left British Columbians feeling disconnected and like their government is not listening to their concerns. In just the first year since signing our agreement, we have worked together to:

ban big money;
reform the lobbying industry;
make historic investments in childcare and public education;
advance key elements of the BC Greens’ economic vision for the province.

And we’re just getting started.

Right now, I am hard at work with Minister Heyman to develop a climate plan that puts a bold vision for BC’s economy centred around innovation at its core.

We have a unique opportunity to make BC a leader again in climate action.

While climate change poses significant risks and challenges, there are opportunities to be had as the world transitions to the low carbon economy.

But the benefits will only flow to those who are leaders – not the last adopters.

BC was once a leader in climate action, providing an example to the world that a strong economy and bold climate action are perfectly compatible.

I am looking forward to unveiling our plan to make BC a leader once again.

There are challenges that lie ahead, but I am deeply encouraged by our ability to come together to work through our differences.

John and I both know that there is more at stake than the future of our two parties – we are united in our love of this province and we want to set it up for the best possible future.

Our caucus remains committed to doing everything we can to work collaboratively to advance more solutions so that we can deliver on our shared commitments to the people of BC

Thank you.

Joint Media Release

Once more, during budget estimates for the Ministry of Finance today, I rose to ask the Minister about the elimination of the MSP. This time, rather than focusing on the government’s approach to replace the revenue through the creation of an employers’ health tax, I asked about the savings that the province will realize as a consequence of eliminating the MSP.

It looks like the province will save about $175 million annually through eliminated MSP premiums.

Below I reproduce the text and video of our exchange.

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I have two questions on this subject of the employer health tax. When the B.C. Green Party called for the elimination of MSP premiums a number of years ago, we were basing our decisions on how we would move forward on the Ontario model. One of the big reasons, as well, that we thought that — and one of the issues that I haven’t heard canvassed yet — was that there’s an enormous waste in the MSP system. We know that monthly bills go out month after month to people all across British Columbia. We know that credit agencies are given files where there’s a lot of debt that has never been paid.

My two questions to this: how much money is being saved by eliminating the monthly billing of the MSPs, and how much of the outstanding liability exists with respect to MSP premiums that have not been collected? What is the government planning to do to get some of that money back — if they have a possibility of getting it back at all?

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the question. I think the member has described exactly one of the many reasons, certainly one of the large reasons, that it’s important to eliminate medical service premiums.

I don’t think there’s anything that people have described as worse to administer. The member mentioned the challenges of administering it for government, the challenges of administering it as employers and then the individuals. So it trickles down.

I’m sure the member has heard the stories, as I have, of people who’ve left a job where they were paid their MSP premiums, gone to a job where they aren’t, trying to get back in — or the other way around — and be able to manage to figure out what they owe and have the billing be correct.

Seniors. I think the member mentioned this issue before, and I’ve certainly heard it — seniors in my office crying because they’ve received the collection notice. This was first time they received the notice. So I think it’s clear that that is something that has to be taken care of.

The contract it services will be about a $60 million savings, to end that contract for managing the medical service premium. The debt expense right now is $115 million, so that would be debt, obviously, that would need to be written off or collected. That’s roughly the amount each year. So that’s, again, a savings when you look at the bad debt that has to be covered each year.

Video of Exchange

In the Ministry of Finance budget estimates today I had the opportunity to question the Finance Minister on the recently announced employers’ health tax. This tax is being proposed to replace revenue that will be lost due to the elimination of the regressive MSP premium.

Below I reproduce the text and video of our exchanges.

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I have six short questions to pose to the minister on this theme that’s being raised by the member for Prince George–Valemount and the member for Surrey–White Rock.

The minister has chosen to eliminate MSP premiums, which, of course, we support, because we, frankly, also had it in our platform. But she has chosen a way to do this which is through a payroll tax. Again, we support the government’s intention of doing it. It’s not what we would have done. We recognize we can agree to disagree.

Our approach would have been to mirror more what was done in Ontario, through the creation of a health care premium that was progressive and actually person-based, which would allow people to still recognize that there is a cost to health care. They’re see it on their pay stub, etc.

Again, I recognize that government had different priorities or ideas here. But with that said, I’d I like to ask a couple of questions, because there is definitely some concern out there within the employers of non-profit, local government, school board sectors, as well as small business and other business.

Some of it is not well grounded. I have some troubles with some of the estimated property tax increases that I’ve been seeing coming from municipalities, which suggests to me there’s a property tax gouge that’s going on there that actually is not representative of how much the real cost would be for their employees to….

With that said, I have a couple of questions. They’re with a focus on the MSP Task Force. The MSP Task Force was due to give its final report to the minister just a few weeks after the budget. My first question is: why did the minister make the significant decision that she did with respect to the payroll tax prior to the MSP Task Force reporting in?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. I think, as has been described, I received an interim report, and the member asks why we didn’t wait for the final report.

In fact, in putting together the budget, when we were taking a look at both the challenges and opportunities that were there, one of the challenges, as I mentioned earlier, that I was faced with that was not expected to be in this kind of severe situation was the issue of ICBC and the deficit at ICBC. So when we took a look at building the budget, we felt that this was the time to make the decision around both the ICBC issue and moving towards the MSP.

The other thing that was very clear — a task force certainly raised this issue as well — was the urgency for people to know that MSP premiums were going. That was a very clear message.

There were seniors groups and other organizations that had come forward to talk about the urgency of finding a time to let us know when they were going to be eliminated. “We know you say you’re going to do it by the end of your term, but we really are interested in making sure that we know a date so that we know it’s going to be gone, so that we have the time to plan but also that we know that commitment is there.” So it was also taking into account the urgency of people who really wanted to know.

It was the possibility, then, of looking at our three-year budget term and being able to do the planning that was necessary.

The member mentioned the issue of not-for-profits and school districts. I think, as the member knows, those issues are still being discussed. We’re gathering data, and I think it again points out…. We talk about getting information in government. I think we’ve had this conversation on a whole range of issues, mostly in housing.

It’s pretty obvious, across the board, that more information is needed for groups and organizations, like not-for-profits, to be able to gather the data that’s needed around everybody’s individual circumstances. So we’re finalizing that, and I certainly hope by summertime to have those issues resolved.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the answer. Through you, hon. Chair, to the speaker, to the minister. It’s the end of Thursday afternoon, and I think we’re all tired, especially the minister.

My question, then, is…. If, as alluded to there, there was a budgetary shortfall because of ICBC, surely that would have been realized early in the term of the government. My question: why did the government not then simply go to the task force and ask them to expedite their review so that they could provide the minister the recommendations that she needed prior to her making a decision, in light of the fact that I understand that no such request was actually given?

Hon. C. James: In discussions with the task force and their discussion about the pieces they were continuing to work on, they’re continuing to work on a number of pieces that they wanted time to complete and that, certainly from my perspective, I felt were worthwhile. So I did ask them to continue to do a final report. I felt that that was worth looking at. There are, obviously, future budgets to come, and there may be some really good ideas and good approaches that might be worth looking at and considering. That’s why we got an interim report from them and why I asked them to complete the final report.

On the ICBC, I have to say that the situation was deteriorating much more rapidly than I think anybody imagined, certainly more than the minister of ICBC imagined and certainly more than I, as Finance Minister, imagined. That created a real challenge when it came to the budgeting.

A. Weaver: To the minister, then, on this final report, I have two questions that I’ll put into one here. In the budget, and just now, the minister stated that the task force would still complete their final report and that she was looking forward to receiving it.

My questions, in one, here are: what did the minister direct the task force to look at for their final report, given that she’d already made a decision to implement the employer health tax? Secondly, has she received the final report? If so, when will she release it?

Hon. C. James: The task force, in the discussion we had around the interim report, said that they were still working on a few pieces. I know, certainly, that one of these is an issue that has come up, around the Select Standing Committee on Finance, for a number of years, which is the issue of a tax on sugary drinks. That was one of the pieces that they were interested in finalizing some work on. As I said to them: “Finish up the work that you’re doing, and bring it forward as your final report.”

The other piece that they were wanting to look at and that they’d started some work on but wanted some more time to look at was the issue of the homeowner grant: was there an opportunity, with the homeowner grant, to look at some more progressive kinds of changes to the homeowner grant? Again, I said, I certainly expected that that would be interesting to be able to review. So that’s another piece that’s coming.

I expect to receive…. I’m hoping to receive their final report shortly. Yes, it certainly will be public, once I receive it as minister.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for a very helpful response. It actually dealt with one of my further questions, which was with respect to the issue of taxing sugary drinks, which I know the MSP Task Force had talked about considering in their interim report. I look forward to them providing more information in the forthcoming report and to see how the government responds to that.

My final question, then, is again with respect to the MSP Task Force. In the report, they specifically said, “We are leaning towards a combination of a personal income tax surcharge, a small payroll tax and additional ideas.” The additional ideas, as was mentioned, were like a sugary drink tax…. They said: “A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several competitiveness challenges.” This concern about the competitiveness of businesses partly informed why the task force was not leaning towards exclusively a payroll tax but towards a combination of measures to make up the revenues.

My question finally to the minister, why did she choose to implement a payroll tax, rather than go the route recommended by the MSP Task Force, which would have spread the burden of the tax across a variety of areas?

Hon. C. James: We had a little bit of discussion on this earlier, but I think it’s important to state again, as the member mentions, that the task force recommended looking at personal income tax and a payroll tax, as well as other measures that they’re still going to bring forward.

On the personal income tax, as the member knows, as government, we made a change, in September’s budget, on the high-income earners — on the income over $150,000 — and had taken away the tax break that the previous government had given. We felt we had already impacted and made a difference around the personal income tax. That was a piece that we had already moved on, in the September budget.

The other piece that’s important to recognize is that we aren’t actually recouping all of the MSP revenue with the payroll tax. We aren’t actually collecting the magnitude of the MSP. The MSP is at $2.6 billion. We’re bringing in $1.9 billion on the payroll tax. I think that’s another important piece to recognize and to look at when we’re looking at a payroll tax. It’s not actually looking at recouping all of the resources that were there, so we felt it was reasonable to do it as an employers health tax.

Video of Exchange

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Jobs, Trades and Technology about the provincial government’s support for the recently announced BC-based digital technology supercluster consortium.

The B.C.-based Digital Technology Supercluster consortium was selected in February as one of five successful national programs to share a portion of $950 million in federal innovation funding. More than $500 million in private sector funding has also been committed to the BC-based supercluster project.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In February, B.C.’s economy received a huge boost with the news that our digital supercluster won over $150 million in federal funding. The supercluster offers an opportunity to bring together the private sector and our post-secondary institutions and government to solve problems and accelerate innovation in key sectors in our province, like health care, forestry and manufacturing. This will help B.C. be more competitive as we respond to changing global trends.

The supercluster will generate more than $5 billion in GDP growth and tens of thousands of jobs over the next ten years. It already has hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding and private sector commitments, with over 300 partners.

For the province to be able to participate in this groundbreaking initiative, all we need to do is contribute $1.5 million per year for five years. My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trades and Technology is this: will this government seize the opportunity before them, make at least the minimal contribution required and take a seat at the table of the digital supercluster?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I share the Leader of the Third Party’s enthusiasm for the supercluster proposal. The federal government took the initiative by creating a fund and having a nationwide competition. British Columbia put together a consortium, as the member has mentioned, of over 300 companies — institutions, non-profits, start-up companies — led by some of the biggest companies in the province, and was successful. It has huge potential to create jobs, economic activity and research here in the province.

Just this week, the supercluster group appointed Sue Paish, who will be known to many people here, as the CEO of the supercluster. The structure, the governance model, is all being worked out. She just was hired earlier this week. Once that structure is in place, we will certainly consider provincial options to support this exciting initiative.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: The digital supercluster provides a generational opportunity for this government. Familiar words, actually.

Government can bring the biggest issues B.C. faces to the table, harnessing the ingenuity of our private sector and our exceptional post-secondary institutions to find innovative solutions to our most complex and difficult problems: in areas like, for example, health care, where precision health can enable more effective and targeted treatment for patients; or in areas like our natural resources and manufacturing sectors, where partnerships will increase efficiency and productivity, creating more jobs in rural B.C. and helping us get better returns for our products.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Why wouldn’t government do everything in its power to support this initiative and to make sure that it has a seat at the table — that it seizes the power of this supercluster to tackle the most pressing challenges we face today?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Indeed, that’s exactly what the government is doing. This opportunity is a very exciting one. There are some challenges, as Sue Paish puts together her team, devises a government structure. There are some issues about the ownership of IP that will come out of the research that’s going to be done, the way in which the funds will be divided among the companies involved.

So there are some challenges. I’m convinced that the group is definitely up to it. We are excited by the opportunities.

As the member mentions, there are huge challenges that we here in British Columbia can solve. In fact, just today, over across the water, at the tech conference, there is a group of 3,000 people meeting, talking about the opportunities presented to all regions of the province, all citizens of the province, by the promise of the digital transformation that we’re undergoing.

The supercluster is part of that, and we intend to do our part in spurring that group on to success.

Today I had the distinct honour of providing the opening remarks at the Reimagining Masculinities Conference 2018 held at the University of Victoria.

As noted on the conference website:

ReImagining Masculinities is cultivating meaningful conversations about healthy, non-violent masculinities. Our hope is to inspire empathy, action, and self-reflections through conversation, education, and awareness.

Online streaming of the conference is also available.

Below I reproduce the text of my opening remarks.

Text of Opening Remarks

Opening statement – Reimagining Masculinities

Thank you everyone for being here today to explore an issue that isn’t often discussed in such a public setting.

I’ve been given the opportunity to say a few words about Reimagining Masculinities and as both a professor at UVic and MLA for this riding, it is my absolute pleasure to do so.

Please keep in mind that I teach climate science rather than gender studies, but I will do my absolute best.

This conference is such an accomplishment, not only because of the topic, but because of the breadth of talent represented as well.

Paul Lacerte has many fans in the legislature who are proud to wear their moosehide campaign pins and I hope everyone here today will pledge to get involved.

We could surely all benefit from more poetry in our lives and I know Councillor Jeremy Loveday will show that politicians can have a way with words.

The links between Tanille Geib’s Healthy Relationships workshop and Allan Wade’s analysis of colonial masculinities show just how complex this topic really is.

When I consider toxic masculinity, it is not hard to make connections to the events that we hear about every single day.

Whether it’s disgraced actors or the tragedy in Toronto, the MeToo movement has highlighted just how big an impact toxic masculinity has on all of us.

It’s possible that until recently a lot of men may not have realized the extent of abuse that women have always had to deal with.

On the other hand, I want to avoid the idea that the only role men can play in the movement is of the accused.

This conference is a prime example of the role that men can play in addressing this problem, and it’s something that I have always tried to do as an MLA.

Through collaboration with the previous government, I was able to ensure that legislation passed to require all universities and other postsecondary institutions in British Columbia to implement comprehensive sexualized violence and misconduct policies.

My hope was that survivors of sexualized violence on campus would be better supported by their schools, and that the process would be more transparent for all involved.

Based on our initial consultations it appears as though this has been the case. I thank Kayla Phillips, who has been working diligently in our BC Green Caucus as a legislative intern.

She has been spearheading our efforts to determine the effectiveness of the legislation that we introduced two years ago.

I was also able to introduce and get implemented a law that banned employers from requiring their employees to wear high heels which had been a problem particularly in jobs like serving where women have traditionally been subject to high levels of sexual harassment.

While it has not righted all wrongs in the industry, I have spoken with many women who are happy to no longer fear losing their job for refusing to wear painful footwear.

This conference also highlights the importance that intersectionality plays when considering toxic masculinity. This is not simply an issue of masculine men and feminine women, but a whole spectrum of those with varying identities impacting their own experiences.

I encourage anyone involved in tackling toxic masculinity and its effects to think outside our standard binaries for innovative solutions, such as we have here today.

I would like to thank hosts Scott Thompson & Steven Hao as well as the organizers, including Nick Sandor, for asking me to speak today.

I’d now like to introduce Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South and Parliamentary Secretary for the Status of Women, Terry Duguid.

Terry’s appointment in this role is a great example of how the status of women in Canada is not a responsibility that rests solely with women, and the part that everyone has in addressing it.

While Terry can’t be here in person, he can tell you more about his role through this video:

I’m also lucky enough to be joined by MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin, Mitzi Dean. Mitzi was recently named Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity in BC and it’s hard to imagine a better choice for that role in the legislature.

Before her election last year she had spent many years advocating for women and children in various parts of the world and with the U.K.’s largest child protection charity. She now brings that experience to share with you today.