Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Premier what his government is doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in British Columbia.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: We’ve talked about the last 16 years. We’ve talked about the 1990s. Let’s talk about the future now. In the second quarter of 2018, British Columbians bought 2,564 electric vehicles, more than three times the amount bought in the previous year. Across our province, dealerships can’t keep EVs on their lots. Backlogs and waiting lists vary from three months to a year, even up to 18 months, and the clean growth strategy to be released later this fall will bring in an aggressive ZEV standard to B.C.

Charging infrastructure remains a barrier for widespread EV adoption, and B.C. Hydro, which has installed a few fast-chargers recently, has done so by giving away the electricity for free. This has led to large lineups as locals get electricity for free while those who need it and those who want to pay for it have to wait in line, hoping to get a charge at some point down the road.

B.C. manufacturing companies like Electra Meccanica, Envirotech Electric Vehicles and Environex Inc. are looking to set up here in British Columbia — manufacturing facilities that want to grow our economy and meet global demand.

My question is to the Premier. What is his government doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in B.C.?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for the question. It’s nice to have forward-looking questions on how we’re going to build a better, stronger British Columbia, how we’re going to meet our objectives with respect to climate action, and I appreciate the question.

First of all, British Columbia does lead the country in charging stations, some 1,500. And now you can travel from Golden…. The member from Golden can travel all the way to Tofino in his electric vehicle and not have to stop and charge. As the member quite rightly says, though, we do have some challenges.

That’s why the B.C. Utilities Commission has opened up a review on their own initiative to ensure that we find a way to get electricity into electric vehicles in a way that’s cost-effective, a way that’s fair to the travelling public and allows us to build even more capacity going forward.

Lastly, I would say, with respect to electric vehicle uptake in the economy, we had to increase…. The Minister of Finance found an additional $10 million to put into the clean energy vehicle program in September because it was already oversubscribed from February. That speaks to demand in the economy. That speaks to a responsive government that’s listening to people and putting in place programs and services that will help them and help all of us meet our climate change objectives.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: As the Premier mentioned, obviously there are nearly 1,500 EV charging stations in British Columbia. Almost all of them give away electricity for free. Some are private; most are not. The free model is rapidly becoming unsustainable as more and more British Columbians move towards EVs.

To sell someone electricity in this province, you must be registered as a public utility unless you get some very-difficult-to-get exemption. Oregon, California, Washington, Ontario, New York and a number of other U.S. states have already exempted EV charging from energy regulation. Resale of electricity is permitted, like a gas station, without prior approval, and prices are set by the market. Of course, safety, consumer protection and other considerations are indeed regulated.

My question, then, to the minister is this. The type of approach that encourages private investment in vehicle-charging infrastructure in British Columbia is exactly the direction we want to go. Will the Premier commit his government to updating B.C.’s regulatory environment for EV charging stations immediately after receiving the recommendations from the B.C. Utilities Commission report he referred to?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his interest and passion on this subject. I also want to say that we are utilizing the B.C. Utilities Commission, unlike the previous government that sidelined this very useful regulatory body. We’re using the B.C. Utilities Commission to determine the best way forward.

The member is quite correct. He’s looked into this diligently. We do have some challenges with respect to giving away energy in some places and overcharging in others. A regulatory framework that meets the needs of the travelling public and allows us to meet our climate objectives over time is the right way forward.

I look forward — as all members, I’m sure, do — to the Utilities Commission reporting back in the fall — or in the next number of weeks, I expect — on their proposals going forward.

But I also want to touch on another component of the question that the member asked and that is how can we incent and attract the development of, the creation of construction and the implementation of a program that has a clean, green, innovative tinge to it. That would be left to the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of Jobs, Training and Technology, who appointed the first innovation commissioner in B.C.’s history so that we can have an economy that works for everybody and looks forward, not backward, like the people on the other side.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 41: Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill repeals the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, brought in by the BC Liberals in 2002. The original version of the bill included language stripping class size and composition rights from teachers’ collective bargaining.

That version led to the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation going on strike, and created a decade-and-a-half long dispute ending with the legislative change being deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Once the original version of the bill received royal assent the School Act amendments came into force. This is why they are no longer seen in the present version.

The powers granted to postsecondary institutions that remain in the original version have never been used. Nevertheless, in light of the recent Supreme Court of Canada BCTF decision, if a postsecondary institution were to invoke the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, it is likely it would be deemed unconstitutional, as it is very similar language to what has already been deemed unconstitutional.

Below are the text and video of my second reading speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act.

As the minister mentioned, this act repeals the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that was brought in under the previous government in 2002.

Within the language of that bill brought in in 2002, restrictions were removed, in particular the clause:

Despite any other Act or a collective agreement, an institution has the right to

(a) establish the size of its classes, the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a semester, a term or an academic year,

(b) assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,

(c) determine its hours of operation and the number and duration of terms or semesters during which instruction is offered to students,

(d) allocate professional development time and vacation time to facilitate its organization of instruction, and

(e) provide support for faculty members, including, but not limited to, teaching assistants, senior students, contractors and support staff members.

This legislation, brought to 2002, was fortunately never actually challenged and never actually used, because universities and colleges recognize that the governance style within these academic post-secondary institutions is more of a collegial form of governance, one in which an academic environment is governed by the senate, where there is input from faculty and staff and students in terms of the academic direction of an institution.

What was very troubling, of course, is that when this act was introduced, it also amended sections of the School Act, which stripped teachers’ bargaining rights — or when the prior act was a similar thing — related to class size and composition.

Remember the infamous Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, which started major labour disputes in our province with health care workers. Again, that was also implemented at the same time. It was rather a classic example of a pendulum that swings, when we have governments shift from one to the other side of the political spectrum.

If ever there was a compelling testimony as to why proportional representation is important, it’s that it limits these kinds of pendulum swings because of the fact that we typically don’t go from one extreme to the other. In this example, we’re going back to legislation coming in, being repealed. Of course, this should never have been brought in, in the first place.

With the B.C. Teachers Federation, of the examples I just raised, that dispute lasted for a decade and a half. How much money, how many hours lost, how much stress put on teachers, how much education was not delivered because of time being put to this because of, frankly, punitive measures that were brought forward by the previous government to the employees within the education sector, whether it be K-to-12 or post-second institutions?

The amendments to the School Act that were brought in with the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act were poorly thought out. It was legislation that caused, as I mentioned, a decade of turmoil, including the longest strike in BCTF’s history, in 2014, when I was on the other side there. It was based, frankly, on ideology that the government of the day doubled down on as it lost decision after decision, until it went to the Supreme Court, which, only for a few minutes, deliberated before they ruled unanimously on the direction that this should take.

I remember, frankly, three years ago standing in this House and speaking about the approach of the previous government toward education. At that time, I said that moving the relationship forward between the BCTF and the government would require trust — mutual trust. It was easy, of course, for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education were leery to trust the direction of the previous government.

At the time, I was arguing that the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the government was providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Needless to say, that was not building trust. It was a classic example of the previous government’s approach.

Instead of working to build trust, the previous administration spent years fighting the BCTF — and countless dollars in doing so — creating labour disputes, court battles and strikes until finally the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the BCTF.

They won their challenge because the legislative changes infringed on B.C. teachers’ freedom of association, guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I use this example because the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that this bill is repealing here today — that is, Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act — has very similar language, which I read out earlier, very similar language in it, which, in theory, could render key sections in collective agreements with post-secondary educators void.

Coming to a specific example in the previous bill, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, which is being repealed, it states here, as well: “Despite any other Act or collective agreement, an institution has the right to…assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,” and to establish class sizes and “the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member….”

The total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member — this shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how universities operate.

I taught at a university for 25 years before coming here. I had PhD students and master’s students. To think, here, that somehow government was enabling that my institution could tell me how many PhD students I could supervise…. Who’s going to pay them? We have departmental policy that requires us to find money to pay our students. What about if I was no longer active in research, and on and on. It just showed such a fundamental misunderstanding.

But in fact, in 2007, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators noted this, and they stated that this act overruled provisions of their collective agreements that dealt with class size. At the same time, their statement read as follows. This is the statement that they read: “Although we have succeeded in preventing post-secondary employers from using the legislation, today’s decision adds to our case that the legislation should be scrapped all together.” That was with respect to a ruling, one of the many rulings that came in the BCTF’s favour.

The Public Flexibility and Choice Act has still not been used to this day, thank goodness. But if it were to be used, I cringe to think of the disputes it would cause, and the subsequent legal challenges that could arise.

Now, I recognize that this legislation, which is still on the books, is a blight on the previous government, is a blight on the official opposition, which is why it seems that there are no speakers to this at second reading, and that they’ll accept it, and quickly, apart from one just saying, in a matter of moments, that they’ll accept it.

We’re not getting a detailed discussion and rationale on why this was brought in, in the first place. Why was this brought in, in the first place? We have members sitting opposite who’ve been in the B.C. Legislature since 2002, when, in fact, this legislation was brought. Rather than simply giving us a history, rather than telling us why it was brought in and why they’re now supporting it, all they say is we support repealing it, in essence.

I recognize this is a blight. It’s a shameful blight on 16 years of actually not putting education as a priority in this province. This bill before us today is seeking to remove the controversial piece of legislation, which, fortunately, has never been used before, and, frankly, if it were, would almost certainly have triggered legal challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada, where, once again, it would’ve been deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the legacy that the new government has to deal with. It is repealing legislation that, yet again, would almost certainly have been unconstitutional. My caucus and I are 100 percent behind this bill, and with that, I thank you for your attention.

Video of Speech

True to form, the BC Liberals once more stood up today and voted against taking big money out of BC Politics. Recall last year they also voted against taking big money out of our provincial election campaigns. This time it was at First Reading of Bill 53: Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. This bill aligns advertising and financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act.

I’m not sure what, if anything, the BC Liberals have learned since the last election. British Columbians were well and truly fed up with the “wild west” of BC political financing: Any person, union or corporation anywhere in the world was able to donate any amount of money to any political party any time they wanted.

Bill 53 complements Bill 3: Election Amendment Act, 2017 and Bill 15: Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017 which were passed last year to ensure provincial, local government and school board elections were free from the influence of big money.

Below I reproduce the press release my office issued on this topic.

Media Release

Weaver: Taking big money out of recall campaigns will strengthen our democracy
For immediate release
October 30, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, today commended the government’s legislation that would take big money out of recall campaigns. Weaver says the legislation builds on the work the B.C. NDP government and his Caucus are doing to make the B.C. political system more responsive to voters rather than special interests.

“Recall campaigns should be about making politicians accountable to their constituents – not to making them subject to big money-funded hit jobs,” said Weaver.

“These rules will apply to both proponents of recall campaigns and politicians who are attempting to stay in power. This legislation will ensure that a sufficiently motivated electorate is able to recall their elected officials, without risking the process being corroded by the influence of big money. Politicians should be accountable to voters – plain and simple. Unions, corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals should not have a disproportionate say in our democracy, whether they support the elected official or the recall effort in any given campaign.

“I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the B.C. Liberals voted against this legislation. This is the same party that refused to act while our province was internationally derided as the “wild west” of political fundraising, only to make a 180 reversal in their summer 2017 throne speech in a desperate attempt to cling onto power. They continue to fail to understand that democracy should reflect the views of citizens as equal members of society, not the ability of special interests to pay more.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 48: Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act at second reading. This legislation seeks to improve protection for workers and the accountability of recruiters and employers. It requires the licensing of foreign worker recruiters and employers; establishes a criteria for issuing registrations; and imposes tougher penalties for recruiters and employers who violate the legislation. It also allows government to recover and return to workers illegal fees charged by recruiters. Finally, this bill creates two registries (one for foreign worker recruiters and one for employers) via a cost-free and accessible online process.

Below are the text and video of my speech in support of this bill.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in second reading debates on Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, an act that’s been introduced by the minister to ensure protection for temporary foreign workers.

I rise to speak in support of this bill. Like the member for Chilliwack, we, too, raised a number of questions and concerns that I hope to see or be explored further in committee stage. Overall, I think this is good legislation and takes us generally in the right direction.

Temporary foreign workers play a critical role in our economy and our society, whether they’re working in the agriculture sector or as home care aides, whether they’re filling seasonal employment. For example, recently, many of us attended the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting in Whistler. The hotel I was staying at was clearly largely employed by temporary foreign workers from New Zealand and Australia, who clearly were coming to British Columbia to gain some experience and gain some expertise in skiing.

I have a great deal in common with them. When I was their age, I was a temporary foreign worker in Australia. I was there for a year, getting the better of the surf and the sand and the Aussie rules football. It was a very rewarding experience for me back in 1988, as I’m sure it was for those young people in Whistler today.

Temporary foreign workers play many critical roles in such trades as the seasonal employment, and for many, actually, we find that it’s a pathway for eventual citizenship. Canada, as a nation — built on the hard work of immigrants — welcomes new Canadians on an ongoing basis.

In fact, just this morning, a young boy in grade 5 at a school that was visiting this Legislature, from Glenlyon, in my riding, just literally became a Canadian citizen. This was a very big deal for him — that today, he became Canadian.

Temporary foreign workers come to B.C. through multiple programs, including the temporary foreign worker program, the seasonal agricultural worker program and the international mobility program. As the member from Chilliwack pointed out, in 2017 alone, the federal government issued over 47,000 work permits for foreign nationals destined for B.C., and 17,000 of these were temporary foreign workers.

We’re second only to Ontario in terms of the total number of temporary foreign work permits that have been issued. Industries like agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting account for nearly half of the temporary foreign workers in British Columbia — like 9,000 workers. Eighty-three percent of those permits are located in the Lower Mainland, 5 percent in Thompson-Okanagan and 4 percent on Vancouver Island.

Again, as somebody…. When I was at the University of Victoria, and my wife was also faculty there, and we had young children, we, too, took advantage of the temporary foreign worker program and were able to bring to Canada a now-Canadian, somebody who was working in Hong Kong as a nanny. She was able to come to British Columbia on such a caregiver program and spend three years with us before becoming a Canadian citizen. Now she’s married here. She’s contributing to the Canadian economy. Her husband is here as well.

We benefited greatly, as a family, from being able to bring a temporary foreign worker here. I’m sure other members in this chamber have similar stories about the importance of temporary foreign workers.

One of my son’s friends had very serious health issues and required 24-hour care — his father did, rather — in the home. And, again, that care was provided by live-in, temporary foreign workers, 24 hours a day. Again, it was simply not possible to find the people, Canadians, who would be able to or willing to serve in such a capacity. Again, in this case, we had a loving home. Temporary foreign workers come, spend a few years, are now Canadian and contributing to our economy and bringing their rich, diverse cultures to Victoria, in this case, but British Columbia and Canada in general.

However, not everyone has the kind of employer that provides a nurturing, safe environment. Temporary foreign workers can be amongst some of the most vulnerable in our society. In a new country, many will face a language barrier. They may be unfamiliar with their rights and our laws, and they are at risk for exploitation and abuse.

For this reason, the legislation before us is important to support, because it addresses this particular aspect. It begins to put in place a means and mechanism to actually ensure that temporary foreign workers are not exploited. The legislation will improve protection for workers and the accountability of recruiters and employers.

For example, it will do a couple of things. It’ll create two registries, one for foreign worker recruiters and one for foreign worker employers, via a cost-free — that’s important — on-line process. It’ll allow, also, government to recover and return to workers illegal fees charged by recruiters. In particular, government could impose tougher penalties for noncompliance, including a loss of licence or registration, financial penalties — $50,000 for an individual, $100,000 for a corporation; that’s an awful lot of money — and up to one year imprisonment. The legislation will improve government information about temporary foreign workers, and recruiters and employers will also be required to disclose their relationships with recruiter organizations in various companies.

These are important, some of these changes. We know of, or we’ve heard stories of, examples where recruiters collect a fee from temporary foreign workers. They end up working here. There are examples we’ve heard stories of where passports are held from temporary foreign workers, and exploitation sets in.

Much of this bill, obviously, is modeled after the employer standards act, and it follows the lead of other jurisdictions like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which already have temporary foreign worker registries in place. Last week one of our press gallery, Les Leyne, reported out that B.C. is considered to be well behind the pack in upholding standards and pursuing complaints. This was reported out in one of his articles he wrote. This is important to note, that this legislation does actually deal with bringing us in line with some of the other jurisdictions.

In 2018, the B.C. budget for the Minister of Labour received a $3 million increase in funding over three years to support initiatives for compliance and enforcement, improve protections for vulnerable workers and support fair and balanced treatment of workers and employers in B.C.

Within that context, we know that the legislation coming before us is legislation that has got monies associated with it to ensure that it’s delivered in a manner that will actually meet the objective it is being put together to address. Most recruiters and employers will seek to do their best for employers. We know that. But this legislation is targeting those who try to skirt the rules a little bit to ensure that there is unsafe working and living conditions, for example, are dealt with to ensure that temporary foreign workers cannot be treated inappropriately for fear of complaining about their jobs, they might lose their jobs. So they might be sent home in debt. There is a whole bunch of issues that are being dealt with here that for which this bill is trying to ensure safe conditions exist.

This bill will require recruiters and employers who seek out and hire temporary foreign workers. Registration. They will require them to register. By doing so, the government will be able to identify and respond to bad operators for the benefit of all stakeholders involved. In essence, this levels the playing field for both employers and recruiters by addressing the few bad operators out there who take advantage of temporary foreign workers and hence, reap the benefit.

When this first came in, I feared that this bill to establish the temporary foreign worker registry would have created an unfair burden for employers — the small employers, not so much the bigger employers, but the small employers — the employer who is perhaps a spouse who is looking for help for a caregiver for their ailing partner or a family who is looking for a caregiver for their child.

Small business. I was initially concerned that this might be regulatory red tape but oversight and costs. I was reassured after receiving a briefing from the ministry that this is, indeed, not the case. In fact, the fact that is free is not a financial burden, and the fact that it’s looking like it will be an online process that will take 15 minutes or so to fill out in terms of the registry. It seems to me that that is not onerous in light of the fact as an employer of a temporary foreign worker in a caregiver capacity you already have to register for a GIC number. You have to register with CPP and EI deductions, etc. So this is relatively pale in comparison to what already exists.

Overall, I am pleased with this legislation. Again, creating a safer environment and a safer experience for temporary foreign workers will have a net positive impact on B.C. I will also agree with the member for Chilliwack who spoke about some of the work that was done by the previous government in this area.

I remember very fondly working with the then-minister of, I guess it was Jobs, now the member for Prince George–Valemount, who together and collectively, we were able to introduce legislative change to no longer make it allowable for an employer in British Columbia to require an employee to wear high heels or footwear otherwise deemed to be unsafe.

In fact, I can tell you if you go to bars around this area you will find that most people are no longer wearing high heels. Very often, people come up and are very pleased by that legislation. Government listened, government responded, and now you’ve got soft flats happening in bars across British Columbia. That’s actually an important health and safety achievement that we’ve got here.

Finally, I’ll say that I do commend the minister for looking out for workers. But I hope the minister can also recognize that we have to look out for not only temporary foreign workers but our own workers in British Columbia. The fact that British Columbia is dragging its heels in terms of introducing legislation or introducing now order-in-council to actually address the presumptive clause for mental illness in a number of professions. Frankly, we could follow the lead of some provinces and actually assume a presumptive clause for all mental illness for all workers covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

The reason being, of course, is if you have exposure to mental illness having to recant and retell your stories time and time again in order to prove that it is your workforce that actually is the result of or caused that mental illness, can be very onerous, and frankly, can be detrimental to the overall well-being and subsequent recovery of workers in B.C.

So I look forward to further efforts that the Minister of Labour will have in this regard in the weeks and months ahead

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