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

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

Text of My Speech

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

I’d like to quote Winston Churchill:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Hon. Members: More. More.

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

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

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

Video of My Speech

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

Text of My Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video of My Speech

Today in the Legislature I offered a number of practical steps that government could take to address Vancouver’s growing affordability crisis. It’s been more than two years now since I first raised these issues. As noted below, there are at least three dimensions to the problem: 1) government incentivized speculation; 2) preponderance of vacant homes; 3) non-enforcement of illegal realtor transactions.

First, I reintroduced a Private Member’s Bill entitled Bill M201 Land Title Amendment Act, 2016. If enacted, this bill would amend the Land Title Act to reintroduce and expand provisions that were previously in the Act. Such provisions will help determine who is purchasing property in BC. It would allow the government to determine foreign investment flows, the role corporations are playing, and whether we are seeing speculation in our market coming from other regions of Canada.

Second, while government has finally committed to take action to ensure enforcement of the Real Estate Services Act, nothing is being done to address the growing number of empty homes in Metro Vancouver. It’s beginning to happen here in the CRD as well. In addition, government has allowed a speculative tax loophole to remain open. Previously I’ve referred to this as a loophole so big you could drive a bus through it.

During question period I asked government about both of these. I asked about closing the Bare Trust loophole and whether government will introduce legislation that taxes vacant properties in urban areas in a revenue-neutral fashion to ensure that the money becomes available to pay the social costs associated with the lack of affordable housing. This would also incentivize the renting of vacant homes, thereby increasing affordability by increasing rental supply.

As you will see from the response I got from Minister de Jong (ignoring the banter with Minister Andrew Wilkinson who was heckling me), I am cautiously optimistic that we will see something in the budget to address at least some of the issued I raised. I’ll be reporting back on this after the release of the budget next Tuesday.

Below I reproduce the Question Period exchange. Following that I append the text and video of my speech as I introduced Bill M201 Land Title Amendment Act, 2016. Finally, I include a copy of the media release that we sent out today.

Text of Question Period Exchange

A. Weaver: I must admit I found that rather entertaining, if not…. I’m searching for an answer within the rebuttal there. But for more than two years now I’ve been raising the issue of affordability and speculation in the housing market.

There are at least three dimensions to this:

(1) incentivized government speculation;

(2) a preponderance of vacant homes, and

(3) non-enforcement of illegal realtor transactions.

I just reintroduced a bill to amend the Land Title Act, thereby providing government with access to critical information needed to understand who is actually buying properties in our province. Government inaction plays a substantive role in fostering speculation. The bare trust loophole that I’ve raised several times in this House for several years allows wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid registering at the land title office and so avoid paying B.C.’s property transfer tax.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister for Advanced Education clearly does not understand fundamental real estate, or he would actually understand here a little bit more about where I’m going with this.

Will the Minister of Finance introduce legislation to close the loophole — that we are the only province in the country that still allows to exist — by following the lead of Ontario to actually apply the property transfer tax upon change in beneficial ownership instead of change in title? And if not, why not?

The Minister of Advanced Education should know better than to actually pretend this is not an issue in British Columbia, because it is. I speak to real estate developers, I have spoken to mortgage lenders, and I know that this loophole is being used in British Columbia for speculative purposes and to avoid paying property transfer tax.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two issues, and to be fair, the member has raised them at various times and today used another tool of the Legislature to highlight one of them: the collection of information. I’m going to be a little cautious about what I say today except to acknowledge that the unregistered transferring of interests in real property in British Columbia does have an impact. It also does have an impact on the amount of property transfer tax and the mechanism by which we collect the property transfer tax.

I am cautiously optimistic that when the member has an opportunity to see some of the provisions of the budget that will be tabled on Tuesday of next week, he will find at least some aspects of that document to find favour with that will respond to some of the concerns that he’s outlined today.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I hope on that day when I see that, the Hon. Minister of Advanced Education will eat some humble pie, but I suspect that may not happen.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I have to respond. The minister suggests I have a PhD in climate change. I don’t. I have a PhD in applied mathematics. This points the fact that the members opposite clearly are not able to get their facts right on so many issues.

When I was door-knocking in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain in one area a few weeks ago, I passed empty houses — empty house after empty house. I went so far as to estimate that one in three of the homes that I knocked the door on were empty. Houses, townhouses and condos that remain empty are driving up the price of real estate, making housing less and less affordable for far too many British Columbians.

Will the Minister of Finance introduce legislation similar to what’s being considered elsewhere — in particular, Sydney, Australia, where the exact same problem is happening — that taxes vacant properties in urban areas in a revenue-neutral fashion to ensure that the money becomes available to pay the social costs associated with the lack of affordable housing?

Hon. M. de Jong: I feel like a spectator at the Cambridge-Oxford regatta here.

Let me say this. I will say candidly I’m not entirely drawn to the specific example that the member cites, with respect to the Australian jurisdiction.

I will say this. I think the idea that is captured within the private member’s bill that he has tabled earlier today has merit and relates to the need and the advisability of beginning by ensuring that we have a reliable database that tells us more about what is taking place in the market.

Beyond that, I’ll have to ask the member to be patient for a few more days.

Video of Question Period

Text of my Speech

A. Weaver: It’s with great pleasure that I move introduction of a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be reintroducing a bill that offers government one of the tools it needs to begin to properly assess and act upon the affordability-in-housing crisis affecting Metro Vancouver and emerging here in the capital regional district as well.

There’s been significant conversation in the past few months about the role that speculation is playing in our market. The government came out with a number of documents purporting that foreign investment wasn’t a factor. These studies were vague and lacked any links to clear, rigorous evidence that supported the claim.

It’s with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today. The bill amends the Land Title Act to provide the government with the means of determining who is purchasing property in B.C. This includes both foreign investment flows — the role that corporations are playing in purchasing property — and if we have significant speculation coming from other places in Canada.

To be clear, this bill is not about identifying what specifically is driving housing prices to unsustainable rates, but, rather, to ensure that the government is informing itself so any future policy measures are based on a better understand of what is happening with our provincial real estate industry.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

———

Bill M201, Land Title Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of my Speech

Accompanying Media Release

Media Release – February 11th, 2016
Andrew Weaver questions government action in the housing market
For immediate release
 
Victoria, BC – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head, says that government policy is contributing to the rampant speculation in Vancouver’s housing market and that it could take simple steps to start addressing the issue now.

“Speculation in Vancouver’s housing market is not a new issue” says Weaver. “Suddenly, with the potential of fraud occurring the Premier has called on the Real Estate Council to take action. However there are a number of steps the Provincial government could take right now to clamp down on this out-of-control problem.”

Earlier today Weaver introduced a Private Member’s Bill titled the Land Title Amendment Act. The legislation would allow government to track the source of home purchases throughout the Province to better understand the effects that foreign and domestic speculation is having in BC.

“Tracking who owns property through a simple amendment to the Land Title Act would give government the information it needs to see the role foreign ownership is actually having in our marketplace.”

Weaver also used question period to probe the Minister of Finance about whether the government would act to close a loophole that contributes to incentivizing the speculative real estate market in B.C.

“Legal entities like the bare trust, whether by design or by omission, are helping drive the speculative real estate market in B.C.,” said Weaver. “It is essential that we begin to ratchet down on these practices so that houses aren’t simply treated as commodities, but as essential building blocks for healthy communities.”

The bare trust loophole allows wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid registering at the Land Title Office and so also avoid paying BC’s Property Transfer Tax.

Weaver also probed the Minister of Finance about any action that will be taken to follow what other jurisdictions are doing, and explore the use of a tax on vacant properties, in a revenue neutral fashion, in order to help pay for the costs associated with the lack of affordable housing.

“There are at least three dimensions to this problem in Metro Vancouver: government incentivized speculation; preponderance of vacant homes and non-enforcement of illegal realtor transactions,” said Weaver. “While it is great that this government is finally starting to pay attention to what is happening in the Lower Mainland housing market, their first step has been to call upon others for action. The reality is there are a number of actions that this government could take to address all three aspects of this issue. I’m am calling on them to take these steps.”

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
Twitter: @MatVic

Today in the legislature I introduced a private member’s bill entitled Bill M202 University Amendment Act, 2016. The purpose of this bill is to halt the creeping government interference in university governance, an issue I have previously raised in the past.

In a recent article in the Georgia Strait entitled Arvind Gupta, Andrew Weaver, and the future of B.C.’s Universities, author Charlie Smith threw out a challenge. It was a challenge that I accepted.

The independence of a University Board is critical. The purpose of a university is to educate people who can critically assess information to allow them to participate in an informed manner in a democracy. It’s a place that allows for innovation and creativity to flourish. It’s not a place for government to impose a top down imposition of its ideology. Unfortunately, under existing legislation the government has the potential to interfere in ways that could undermine that autonomy.

The potential of political interference is unacceptable for our institutions of higher learning. My hope is that the government takes my suggestions for solving this issue seriously and takes action on this issue immediately to preserve the independence of our academic institutions.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the speech I gave as I introduced the bill. I also include the accompanying media release.

Text of my Speech

A. Weaver: It’s also with great pleasure that I move introduction of a bill intituled University Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m sure members are aware of the two significant controversies that have plagued two of our universities recently: the controversy between the UBC board and the past president of UBC, Dr. Arvind Gupta, and the recent controversy concerning the decision to appoint James Moore as chancellor of UNBC.

In both these instances, the conflict arose because of the decisions the board made or in how the board acted. While the role of a board of governors is essential to the functioning of a university, the governance of a university must also be independent of any potential real or apparent political interference. It’s with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today.

This bill amends the University Act to ensure that appointees from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council cannot unilaterally set the tone and direction of a university board through having a majority of votes and that university boards cannot unilaterally appoint a chancellor for their university.

This bill will bring British Columbia to the same university governance standards employed by much of the rest of Canada.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

———

Bill M202, University Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of my Speech

Media Release

Media Release: February 11, 2016
Andrew Weaver – University Boards Need More Independence
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the BC Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, is offering concrete steps for how the BC Government can remove the potential of political interference in University Boards.

“The independence of a University Board is critical. The purpose of a university is to educate people who can critically assess information to allow them to participate in an informed manner in a democracy. It’s a place that allows for innovation and creativity to flourish. It’s not a place for government to impose a top down imposition of its ideology” says Weaver. “Unfortunately, under current legislation the government has the potential to interfere in ways that could undermine that autonomy.”

Today Andrew Weaver introduced a bill in the BC Legislature that, if passed, would remove the ability of a Board of Governors to appoint a Chancellor, and that would reduce the number of provincial appointees on University Boards.

“It is highly troubling to me that the majority of University Board members at universities in our province are appointed by the provincial government. Equally troubling is that the University Board of Governors appoints a university’s Chancellor.”

In 2008 the BC Liberals amended the University Act to allow the University Board of Governors to appoint a university’s Chancellor. The BC NDP started this trend in 1997 by allowing the Board of Governors at the Technical University of BC to appoint its Chancellor.

“At UBC we’ve seen the Board of Governors interfering in a behind-the-scenes way to push out the University’s President,” says Weaver. “At UNBC we’ve witnessed the highly controversial appointment of a Chancellor. Even the Board itself was highly divided on the appointment – it only passed by one vote.”

The main concern with what has occurred at UBC and UNBC is that politically appointed members on both University Boards may have taken intrusive actions into the direction that these universities are taking. This in turn has huge implications for the governance of universities across the province.

“The potential of political interference is unacceptable for our institutions of higher learning. My hope is that the government takes my suggestions for solving this issue seriously and takes action on this issue immediately to preserve the independence of our academic institutions.”

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Have you walked along Gyro beach in Cadboro Bay lately? It looks like a graveyard for derelict vessels.

Dealing with derelict vessels can be a jurisdictional nightmare. To make matters worse, the municipal boundary between Oak Bay and Saanich puts some of these vessels in the Saanich intertidal zone and some in the Oak Bay intertidal zone. It’s even possible that one of these ships is half in Saanich and half in Oak Bay.

This is not a new situation in British Columbia. In 2014, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations released a comprehensive report entitled: Dealing with problem vessels and structures in BC waters. The report outlines the jurisdictional conundrum and specifically notes:

Often, there is no simple answer to the question: Who should be dealing with this problem?”

In addition, the report provides information as to who should be contacted if a derelict vessel is found. The contact information is quite detailed to specific cases but fails in the larger case when numerous derelict vessels are washed ashore. This is the situation in Cadboro Bay. In addition, the report has a caveat in the form of the following disclaimer:

Readers are cautioned that this paper is not legal advice. It is the intention of Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to update this paper as provincial and federal programs evolve.

My colleague, Adam Olsen has written a blog entry detailing longstanding municipal concerns regarding the lack of federal and provincial leadership in dealing with derelict and abandoned vessels that pollute our coastline. Most recently he worked to raise awareness of the plight of the Chilcotin Princess at the abandoned fish cannery in Namu, BC. The good news is that province and the federal government worked to remedy the situation at Namu, but the piecemeal approach to the management and disposal of derelict and abandoned wrecks is not working.

On Friday January 15, I walked the length of Gyro Beach to get a sense of the scale of the problem we are facing in the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. It was far worse than what I had expected. For quite some time, there has been one derelict vessel (see thumbnail to the right above) that was difficult to reach (except at low tide). Last year I’d inquired as to the possibility of removing it and quickly realized the complexity of the jurisdictional quagmire. But the situation now is very serious. Below I show a few images of the vessels that were present.

So where do we go from here? Clearly the status quo is not working and clearly this is neither a new problem nor one that will go away any time soon. Perhaps a way forward is to explore the innovative steps that have been taken by our friends in Washington State.

While I will be exploring broader policy solutions in the months ahead, I have sent the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations a letter (reproduced below) urging him to deal with an immediate and urgent problem. One of the many wrecks (see image below) on the beach in Cadboro Bay is immediately adjacent to Gyro Park which has been extensively upgraded and improved over the last few years. Gyro park is a regional treasure and has been the playground of several generations of young children (including my wife and me in the 1960s and 1970s and our children in the 1990s and 2000s). Having this wreck so close to a children’s playground is certainly unsafe. And we do not want to wait until an accident happens to have it removed.

Letter to Minister Thomson

Via email to: FLNR.minister@gov.bc.ca

Honourable Steve Thomson
Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
Room 248, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Dear Minister Thomson:

Re: Derelict wreck in Cadboro Bay

I have been contacted by residents in my riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head and the Cadboro Bay Resident’s Association (“CBRA”) with respect to the beached derelict vessel Pacific Sun King that washed up on December 5, 2015. The residents are very concerned about the vessel as a hazard in Cadboro Gyro Park where it is located, on the Crown Provincial foreshore in the upper inter-tidal zone of Cadboro Bay. The vessel is interfering with public access and presents a danger to children who play in the park and in the area. This area is heavily used by the public and especially children.

The CBRA have been in contact with the Municipality of Saanich and their representatives have confirmed that the responsibility for the removal of the wreck does not fall to Saanich since it is located seaward of the formal boundaries of the park.

I am writing to ask the Provincial Government to take the necessary steps to deal with this urgent matter. In addition to a safety issue for children and residents who access the park and beach, the vessel contains a diesel fuel tank and potential seepage that is an environmental hazard.

I look forward to a reply at your earliest opportunity.

Best wishes,
Andrew Weaver, MLA
Oak Bay-Gordon Head