Social Development

On Monday, February 23 2015, I tabled the BC Green Party petition of 6,662 British Columbians calling on the government to replace the regressive MSP premium poll tax with a more fair and equitable option to fund health care services in British Columbia.

Today in the legislature I was up during Question Period. I used this opportunity to question government on the possibility of empowering the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative, progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged in British Columbia?

As you will see from the exchange below, I was pleasantly surprised by the answer that I received. My response to the Minister’s use of a quote from Tommy Douglas is that Quebec and Ontario bring Health Care Premiums into their progressive income tax system as a line item that shows people what they are paying.

QUESTION

A. Weaver: In early January the good health committee at the Monterey seniors’ centre invited me to a conversation on health care. Collectively, these seniors were profoundly concerned about the impact that our regressive approach of charging flat-rate MSP premiums was having on their ability to make ends meet. And this is in the rather affluent riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Since raising this issue last month, I have heard from thousands of British Columbians who agree with me that it’s time to replace MSP premiums with a fair and equitable option. Fortunately, just yesterday the Government House Leader activated the Select Standing Committee on Health, a committee that could be empowered to examine this issue.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this: will he empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative, progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged in British Columbia?

RESPONSE

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. There will, through the estimates process, be an opportunity to discuss the question of the amount we collect and some of the relief that exists for almost a million British Columbians from paying full premiums. The member’s question is more specific, and that is whether or not this is a legitimate or appropriate topic for discussion by the committee.

I took the liberty of quickly checking the terms of reference. I think the power exists now. I think the committee, charged as it is to examine the projected impact of the provincial health care system on demographic trends to the year 2036 on a sustainable health care system for British Columbians…. Similarly, the motion that was before the House just a few days ago asked the committee to “outline potential alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of the significant cost drivers” identified in the original report and “consider health capital funding options.”

I think that’s probably sufficiently broad for members of the committee, and those that they might invite in, to have the kind of conversation that the member is alluding to, and it will be interesting to see what results from that conversation.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

A. Weaver: I must admit I was not expecting that answer. I am pleasantly surprised, and I’m thrilled that the committee will, I hope, seek and explore means and ways of funding the MSP premium more progressively.

The reason why I’m asking this is that the time is right. The Maximus contract was renewed in 2013. I recognize there was a five-year renewable clause in it. Now is the time to work with Maximus to find new ways of not only saving government money — because this is about efficiency as much as it is about delivering services to people who can afford it, with means and ways that allow them to have these services affordably — but it’s about making it fair. It’s about bringing the revenue generation into the income tax system.

So my question to the minister is this. Will the minister consider, as every other province in the country does, bringing in our funding to MSP premiums through the income tax system, whether it be as a line item or as part of general revenues, to avoid the unnecessary bureaucracy associated with chasing after people who have recently lost their jobs and are being charged premiums based on last year’s income tax rate, chasing people who didn’t know they actually had to pay premiums because they are living abroad and so on? Will the minister consider this approach of using our income tax system for actually raising these premiums?

RESPONSE

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things come to mind. I don’t want to prejudge or presuppose what the committee might present in terms of thoughts or recommendations on this. I confess to a certain bias, and that runs counter to the suggestion that the member has offered about eliminating a very specific charge, tax levy, in favour of general taxation provisions.

If the committee is going to have the conversation…. I ran across this in anticipation of some of the conversations, and I wonder if I can share it with the House. It’s from a former Member of Parliament from B.C., an NDP Member of Parliament, who said this:

“I want to say that I think there is value in having every family and every individual make some individual  contribution. I think it has psychological value. I think it keeps the public aware of the cost and gives the people a sense of personal responsibility.

I would say to members of this House that even if we could finance the plan without a per capita tax, I personally would strongly advise against it. I would like it to be a nominal tax, but I think there is psychological value in people paying something for their cards.“

That wasn’t just any Member of Parliament. Before he was a Member of Parliament he was the Premier of Saskatchewan. That was Tommy Douglas in 1961, addressing a special session that created.

I hope the committee will be mindful of all of these ideas as it considers these matters.

Following Question Period, we issued a media release on the exchange. It is reproduced below.

Media Release

Media Statement: February 26, 2015
Health Committee Empowered to Examine MSP Premium Reform

For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Today, in response to a question from Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, the Government House Leader and Minister of Finance agreed that the Select Standing Committee on Health would have the power to examine progressive ways of financing the Medical Services Plan and report on its findings.

“There are clear, progressive alternatives to MSP premiums that would be efficient, cost effective and affordable,” said Andrew Weaver. “I was pleasantly surprised that the Minister agreed that part of the Committees mandate could be to examine these alternatives.”

Currently, British Columbia is the only province in Canada charging a separate, flat-rate fee for medical premiums. The MSP rate is rising under the 2015 Budget by 4% – from $72 to $75 per month for individuals and from $130.50 to $136 for families. The same fee applies to anyone, whether they earn $30,000 or $3,000,000 in a year.

In contrast, both Ontario and Quebec made medical premiums a line item in their personal income tax return. By doing so, they maintained an essential revenue source for health care while reducing the burden on low and fixed income individuals.

MSP premiums are forecast to bring in nearly $2.3 billion in the 2014/15 fiscal year approaching the amount of revenue that is accrued from corporate income taxes. Reforming how this revenue is collected by, for instance, making MSP a line-item in the annual personal income tax return, would turn this regressive tax into one that is fairly applied based on income, while saving costs associated with administration and non-payment collection.

“I understand that the government has concerns about how changes to this tax would affect their financial objectives,” said Andrew Weaver. “Empowering one of our standing committees allows these objectives to be preserved, while also exploring how MSP Premiums can be made to be more affordable for British Columbians. I look forward to presenting practical alternatives to this committee and working with them to bring reform to the way MSP Premiums are charged in our Province.”

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca
Cell: 1 250 216 3382

Today in the legislature I was given the opportunity to respond to last week’s budget.

In the details of my speech below, you will see that I have tried to highlight both what I support in the budget and what I do not support.

Every MLA in BC could probably point to a number of items in the budget that he or she supports. Every MLA could probably point to a number of items in the budget that he or she does not support. Every MLA almost certainly has a wish list of things not included in the budget. And every MLA likely has a different set of priorities for funding. But ultimately, each MLA must weigh the cumulative positive aspects of the budget against its cumulative negative aspects and vote accordingly.

To summarize my view, while this operating budget might well be fiscally balanced, it is neither socially nor environmentally balanced. It fails the test of triple bottom line accountability.

Below is the text of my speech. I welcome your comments and ideas.

Response to the 2015 BC Budget

Preamble

Since my election in 2013, I’ve participated in countless votes on legislation, or sections within legislation. In each and every vote, the official opposition has voted as one. In all but one vote, every member of government has voted as one. And in that one vote, the members from Abbotsford-Mission, Chilliwack-Hope, Maple Ridge-Mission and Surrey Panorama only voted in committee stage against section 115 of Bill 17, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This section granted transgender people the ability to apply to the registrar general for an amendment to the sex designation on their birth registration. Honourable Speaker, while I disagreed fundamentally with the position of these four members, I respected their courage to vote the way they saw fit.

For the past two years Honourable Speaker, I’ve been one of only two MLAs in this chamber whose vote wasn’t a foregone conclusion — the other of course being the Member for Delta South.

Perhaps we might reflect on this for a moment … in a chamber of 84 voting MLAs elected across British Columbia to represent the best interests of their constituents, only two MLAs are not subject to collective group-think exemplified by whipped voting.

Let’s focus specifically on the budget. It doesn’t simply deal with one small area of government policy – it contains the spending for every single Ministry and government program. Each of us could probably point our finger to a number of items in the budget that we like. Each of us could point to a number of items in the budget that we don’t like. Each of us has a wish list of things not included in the budget. And each of us has a different set of priorities.

But the fact is, there are also things we can agree on. We all want health care to be funded. We all want to see government create a favourable environment for small business. We want our infrastructure to be in good condition. We all want clean air and water. And we all want to live in a safe environment.

In fact, I suspect that like me, the Official Opposition supports a number of the government’s new budget initiatives: more funding for Cancer prevention, for instance, or new funding for students who want to focus on programs in the trades. These are rather difficult initiatives to be against.

It is here where I feel it’s appropriate to comment on one of the most absurd rhetorical devices that exists in our political culture.

That is, the notion that if you vote against the budget, you therefore don’t support anything in it. This of course is closely aligned with the equally absurd notion that if you vote for the budget, you are in favour of everything it contains.

It’s this cynical and simplistic narrative that pollutes our political culture. It drives misinformation and creates a void between people and their elected representatives.

We are smart enough to know that most of the debates we have outside of this chamber have more than two sides. Why then do we pretend such nuance does not exist on votes inside the legislature?

This simplistic thinking needs to be cut from our collective discourse. It serves no purpose other than to drive deep wedges between us and to turn the public off important political debates.

As MLAs, we are given a single vote to indicate broad support or opposition to the full suite of measures contained within a budget. We are not asked to vote on every item.

The virtue of representing the Green Party in the House—whether officially recognized or not—is that I can separate my political support or opposition to an idea from the question of who brought it forward. I do not make decisions according to the out-dated framing of left vs. right, or BC NDP vs. BC Liberal, or government vs. opposition.

I base my positions on the evidence that I see at the time, and look for opportunities to contribute my own ideas to improve our province.

This is the approach I have taken with the previous two budgets introduced in the legislature. Despite much to disagree with in both the government’s choices and approach, I wanted to demonstrate an open and honest commitment to compromise. I wanted to make it very clear that I will not prejudge an idea based on its source.

I also didn’t view a vote on the budget as the be all and end all of my interaction with the government. Instead, I viewed it merely as a starting point.

I have spent much of the past two years working hard in an attempt to bring new ideas forward for consideration. I have tried to shine light on issues that have been allowed to slip through the cracks, and to offer substantive feedback and criticism when I feel the government is making the wrong decision. To be honest, I think it’s my job to do so.

I think this point is important – I have not been rushed in either my criticism or my support for government. I look to understand what they are saying before responding.

I want it to matter when I raise an issue – I want my concerns to have some weight.

With this in mind, I turn to the budget at hand.

The 2015 Budget

There was an exchange last week between the Finance Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition that perfectly captures my discontentment and frustration with this budget.

During question period on February 18th, the Official Opposition focused in on the government’s move to reduce the income taxes paid by those earning more than $150,000 a year.

In responding to the questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Finance Minister went into detail about benefits that accrue to British Columbia residents earning less than $19,000 who pay no tax.

He highlighted the small tax credits that were accruing to families — both low income and otherwise — as proof of a concerted effort to make people’s lives better.

Lost in this dance of rhetorical questions and condescending answers, this dance of dysfunction that plays out in this chamber far too often, was the real question, the pressing question, the fundamental question: how is it that we have people earning less than $19,000 in the Province of British Columbia and how do they possibly make ends meet?

Why was this not the central issue of what was discussed? Why was it not the focus of the debate? Why was the government celebrating the fact that it has the fiscal space to offer boutique tax credits, when there are more pervasive, structural issues that need to be addressed? Why are we not taking concrete steps to address them?

It is this last question that is particularly important. The government seems to be asleep at the wheel, driving blindly in the dark without noticing what is happening around them, who they are leaving behind, or what damage is being caused. Honourable speaker, there are many people in this province who truly need their help.

As I said earlier, there must be more to opposition than blind criticism. Legislation must be weighed not on its source but on its value. And the budget that stands before us is not without certain merits.

$12.5 million dollars have been set aside for a world class Cancer Prevention Centre. It’s difficult for me to capture in words the terrible effects of this disease and the heartbreak left in its wake. There are few in this province, and indeed this chamber, that have not felt, either directly or indirectly, its pain. I believe I can stand with my colleagues on both sides of the house as I lend my whole-hearted support to this provision in the budget.

Government has also finally begun to listen to the call echoed across the province, for a more diversified economy. It’s something I’ve been calling for since before I was elected. Government has made important investments in our creative economy, extending tax credits to film, television and video game and other interactive digital media industries. They have made investments at Camosun College, alongside other institutions, as part of a larger post-secondary skills program.

These steps, however tepid, could mark a change for British Columbia; a shift away from that single minded pipedream that has, for far too long, dominated this government’s focus. But after two years racing towards a mirage, it is not enough to inch back to reason. We must move with the same vigour as the government did with LNG to shape a sustainable and diversified 21^st century economy.

Finally, this government continues to prioritize and put forward a budget that emphasizes living within our means as a critical objective. I too believe this to be critical. It’s irresponsible for us not to ensure that our province lives within its means.

While the government’s balanced operating budget is certainly a laudable feat, it unfortunately does not reach far enough. Boasts of surplus and growth fall flat on the thousands of British Columbians who are struggling to make ends meet. The goal of government should not solely be a strong economy but an economy, which strengthens all British Columbians. While this operating budget might well be fiscally balanced, it is neither socially nor environmentally balanced. It fails the test of triple bottom line accountability.

Here’s my concern. I have sat in this chamber for two years now, listening to this government state that it cannot do more for low and middle income British Columbians until the economy grows—that there simply is not enough room in the budget to help single parents, seniors on fixed incomes or the men and women who spend their nights on the street because they have nowhere else to go.

In response, I have offered viable, cost-effective policies that the government could adopt to make life more affordable for British Columbians—most of which either save money in the long-term or don’t cost anything at all. I did so with the recognition that my role as an MLA is to contribute realistic, affordable solutions to the challenges we face.

However, with the tabling of the 2015 budget, we are witnessing a growing trend where the government takes small steps on the periphery to make peoples’ lives better, instead of addressing the fundamental systemic and structural issues that underpin those challenges. With so many British Columbians struggling to get by, we simply cannot afford to neglect these structural issues any longer.

Here’s what I mean:

Right now, we have the second highest income inequality rate in the country and the highest rate of wealth inequality. We are the only province in Canada without a comprehensive poverty reduction plan, despite half a million British Columbians living in poverty—over 160,000 of whom are children. Eighteen percent of our students don’t graduate high school within six years of completing grade eight—and that number rises to 54 percent for aboriginal students. Four of our cities rank among the five least affordable cities in Canada. The list goes on.

The inequities that plague our province exist, in part, because of clear choices that have been made by this government. In order to maintain the illusion of low corporate and personal income taxes, the government has raised regressive user fees like MSP premiums, BC Hydro Rates and ICBC rates. Instead of relying on a progressive tax system where government revenue is drawn according to an individual’s financial means, these regressive user fees target all British Columbians with the same set rates, regardless of whether their income is high enough to afford it.

To counterbalance the growing affordability crisis, I acknowledge that the government has taken a small, yet important, step by ending the claw back on income supports for single mothers. While steps such as this one are incredibly important, they barely touch the systemic challenges that perpetuate an affordability crisis in British Columbia. And besides, the fact that this mean-spirited, punitive, claw back ever existed at all is indicative of a government that has lost touch with the people it is supposed to represent.

Meanwhile, as user fees continue to rise, the government has taken steps, like it did in this budget, to phase out the $150,000 tax bracket for the top two percent of income earners. I recognize that when that tax bracket was first introduced, it was done so with the promise that it would only last for two years. But the rationale at the time was that the government would not need the extra revenue because of its promised wealth and prosperity for one and all from its spinning LNG Hail Mary pass of hope wrapped in hyperbole.

But here we are, two years later. While the Hail Mary pass was indeed caught on May 14, 2013 delivering a Liberal Majority government, it was subsequently fumbled. It was given a mandate to deliver on a promise. It didn’t and it won’t. While the government will attempt to deflect blame on market prices, external pressures, third parties and so forth, the reality is that even despite their generational sell out exemplified in the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, ironically supported by the official opposition, the government has failed to deliver as I knew it would. For more than two years now I have been pointing out that the economics did not and still does not support the government’s reckless LNG promises in a market oversupplied with natural gas and in a jurisdiction that is years behind others in terms of developing an LNG industry.

Honourable Speaker, I strongly support the amendment put forward by the member from Surrey-Whalley. It is imperative that the government report out to British Columbians on where we stand with respect to its failed promises.

Yet this discussion is also indicative of a larger problem.

At a time when the government claims it cannot find enough money for affordable housing and other measures, it is eliminating the tax bracket on the highest two percent of income earners, and foregoing $227 million dollars a year that could be invested in programs that help make our province more affordable.

Here’s the point: It can’t simply be about whether or not there is a tax cut for the top 2% or a $3 rise in MSP premiums. We need to start talking about what those policies represent and what they collectively lead to. Through a combination of complacency and choice we have created a funding structure for our government that relies on low and middle income British Columbians paying more than many can afford.

In the context of the affordability crisis B.C. faces, measures like these at best perpetuate, and at worst add to the inequality that exists in our province.

The conversation we need to be having is not about the individual measures we’re taking to slightly increase the quality of life of British Columbians, but whether over the long-term these policies collectively foster an affordable, just and prosperous society in British Columbia. My concern right now is that we are moving in the wrong direction.

We have a nearly one billion-dollar surplus from the last fiscal year and additional surpluses projected for the next three fiscal years. Compared to a 46 billion dollar budget, that surplus is admittedly modest. Yet, so are many of the steps that we could take with this budget to make smarter, more targeted investments that move us further towards tackling the systemic issues perpetuating our affordability crisis.

Where we go from here

Going forward, we can do better. We need to have the courage to re-envision BC’s path to prosperity. Developing a 21st Century economy — one that is environmentally, socially and economically prosperous — is not about spending more — it’s about spending smarter with proactive, targeted investments.

As British Columbians, we are incredibly fortunate to be so wealthy in both opportunity and potential. We already have the foundation needed to be at the cutting edge of a 21st century economy: a highly educated workforce, renewable energy options, and beautiful towns and cities that people around the world want to move to. We can leverage this potential to foster an affordable, 21st century economy. Here are a few ideas for how to get there:

A budget for a 21st century economy would restructure tax credits and incentives to encourage the transition to a low-carbon economy and to foster a more progressive funding source for government. Rather than offering marginal boutique tax credits, taken from the Harper Tory playbook, for political gains, it would ensure that government revenue is based on an equitable, progressive use of our tax system. It would also use a portion of the nearly one billion dollar 2014/15 surplus to invest in affordability and to support those in need.

While we get ourselves organized to tackle the bigger issue, we need to tend to the low hanging fruit. Changes that incur no cost to government but make a big difference to British Columbians who are struggling. The Legislation of creditor protection for Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP) and Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSP), for example, is long overdue. This simple change will help children saving for their education and individuals with disabilities feel more financially secure and protected in times of personal economic crises. Similarly, making MSP premiums a line item in the progressive Personal Income Tax system would be a quick way to both save on administrative costs and reduce the net burden on low and fixed income individuals while ensuring no revenue is lost to government.

Investing in the health, happiness, and success of this generation and the next starts with education. Five years of labour peace, quite frankly, is not enough. We must not aim for temporary peace — but rather for a new relationship. What I find so concerning about the way this budget deals with education is that yet again government is failing in establishing a new relationship with those who administer and provide education to our children. Whether you agree or disagree with the administrative cuts, what I think is unacceptable is that they appear to have caught school boards off guard. How is the goal of fostering trust served when those who structure our education budgets are in the dark about the resources government is willing to provide them.

Even where government is making investments in education, I would challenge them to broaden their vision. Under the BC Jobs Plan, training focuses on trade skills. It’s good we are training new carpenters, electricians and welders to help build our traditional energy industries. But what about 21st century industries? What about high tech, biotech and cleantech? It seems like we are only training for an LNG-o-centric 20th Century fossil-fuel economy, not the future. We should also be focusing our educational investment on up-and-coming sectors like the cleantech sector that create well-paying, long-term, local jobs that grow our economy while supporting a healthy environment.

Companies like Google, for example, have committed to making the use of clean energy a priority. Currently only 35% of Google’s operations run on renewables. They are actively looking for new locations near green power sources where they can sustainably grow and develop, and many other tech companies are following suit. The government has repeatedly presented their floundering LNG industry as a “generational opportunity.” If we started to capitalize on our renewable energy options instead of clinging on to last century’s dinosaur resources, perhaps we could find and sustain that generational opportunity in cleantech.

British Columbians deserve a government brave enough to see beyond their term and bold enough to make proactive investments, while living within our means. Much like the positive correlation between education level and future health, economic well-being, and longevity, there are many other investments our government could be making to improve the lives of British Columbians and save money down the road. A study released last week from the University of Waterloo, for instance, found that standardizing physical activity programs in Ontario would reduce the $6.8 billion dollar cost associated with sedentary lifestyles in their province. Providing housing options for the chronically homeless is another issue I have spoken at length about. It saves money in the long term by reducing the strain on social, health and justice services.

In light of the increasing costs we have already started to incur from global warming, we have no choice but to start shifting to an economy that takes these threats into account. A paper from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research released earlier this month analyzed the importance of pairing carbon pricing with clean technologies in a more effective policy package. “If we want to contain the impacts of climate change,” they wrote, “it is essential to start comprehensive and meaningful mitigation policies between 2015 and 2020. Otherwise, both risks and costs increase substantially.”

We all know climate change is more than an environmental issue – its impact on the economy will be equally devastating. Even if one prefers to selfishly only concern oneself with the regional ramifications of global warming, the outlook isn’t any better. As we see from indicator shifts in the larger trend of environmental change, local B.C. economies are already being hit — and hit hard. The mountain pine beetle has devastated our lodgepole pine forests. Acidification and warming ocean temperatures are threatening Vancouver Island’s shellfish industries, for example, with scallop death rates in Qualicum Beach rising to nearly 95% since 2010. And, as all of the disappointed skiers in the room know, Mount Washington, now with its 15 cm base, closed on February 9 and still awaits snow after another warm winter.

Though there is no easy solution to the problems we face, we do have options in the steps we take to improve the situation. In addition to carbon pricing — a polluter-pays model of reducing emissions —- technology support schemes can take various forms: from feed-in tariffs to quotas or tax credits for low-emission electricity sources, to direct or indirect support for technological innovation and carbon capture and storage techniques.

Conclusion

So where does all this leave us? I have gone through the merits and the shortcomings of this budget. I have offered a critique of the government’s approach, and have articulated a few examples of concrete steps we could take to move us towards an affordable, sustainable 21st century economy.

I would suggest however, that we must return to where I began in my speech.

If we are to make any real progress, we cannot continue to evaluate critical budget decisions through simplistic and divisive notions of black and white, us-versus-them politics. The challenges are too great and the solutions too complex for us to continue being distracted by partisan positioning.

We need to start with a basic commitment that we will all read the budget before deciding how we will vote for it. To do anything else, is to put ignorance and divisiveness above informed decision-making and a genuine willingness to work together for the betterment of British Columbians.

We need to see budget votes for what they are: a single vote to indicate broad support or opposition to the full suite of measures contained within a budget. There will always be aspects we agree and disagree with; it is impossible to fully represent this complexity with a single vote, which is why we also speak to our decisions in these debates.

And we must have the courage to vote on behalf of our constituents, not our parties. It is the citizens of British Columbia who sent us here to represent them. It is the citizens of British Columbia who experience the short-term consequences of the decisions we make in this chamber. And it is the next generation of British Columbians who ultimately have to live the long-term consequences of our decisions. Each of us needs to reflect on this as we ponder how we will vote.

Today in the legislature I was up during Question Period. I took the opportunity to question government on their strategy for affordable housing. The Minister of Finance recently announced that there’s more than a $444 million surplus in this past year’s budget. I attempted to provide a compelling case to government that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action. In particular I pointed out that using the one-time budget surplus to make capital investments in housing would reduce ongoing operating commitments in health, social and justice systems.

While the Minister’s response to my initial question was certainly not what I was hoping for, I was very pleased with his response to my supplemental question. Below is the transcript of our exchange:

QUESTION

Victoria’s Coalition to End Homelessness estimates that it costs about $25,500 a year to maintain a shelter bed in the capital regional district. On the other hand, the cost to run new supportive housing is only about $16,700 per unit per year. The cost of providing additional rental supplements, including support, is even lower, at $6,800 per unit annually.

The evidence is clear. Since Utah launched its homelessness reduction strategy, a strategy that involved — you guessed it — giving homes to the homeless, they’ve reduced chronic homelessness by 72 percent, and they’ve saved an average of $8,000 per person in health, social and justice system costs.

The same is true elsewhere. For example, the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness calculated that for each dollar spent on housing and supports for the chronically homeless, about $2 in savings is found in health, social and justice services.

The Minister of Finance recently announced that there’s more than a $444 million surplus in this past year’s budget.

My question to the Minister Responsible for Housing is this. Will the government commit to using the one-time budget surplus to make capital investments in housing in order to reduce ongoing operating commitments in health, social and justice systems?

RESPONSE

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. I’m always happy to get up and actually talk about housing in this House, which is seldom, because we don’t usually ask these questions. The fact of the matter is that in British Columbia we are home to the most successful housing strategy in Canadian history, right here in British Columbia.

In the last five years alone over 6,000 people that were formerly homeless in this province are no longer homeless because of the outreach workers, the money that’s been invested, and the people being connected to housing and supports by our people across the province.

We’ve purchased over 50 buildings across the province of B.C. and renovated for housing and have also spent over half a billion dollars, just in the last couple of years, in building additional housing supports for people. In addition to that we also, today, in total, have 100,000 households in British Columbia that receive some form of support in their housing in British Columbia.

There are, today, 27,000-plus families in households receiving rent assistance where they live, in communities across British Columbia. The budget for housing has tripled in the last number of years simply because of the commitment of this government to the success of dealing with homelessness, mental health and addiction.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

I recognize that this is not answer period, but my question was not about what the government has done. My question is about what the government will do in the future.

The reality is that recent analysis showed the least affordable cities in the world were Hong Kong and Vancouver. In fact, in the top five in Canada, four of them were in B.C.: Victoria, Kelowna, Fraser Valley, Vancouver. They’re all in the top five. Toronto is the only one that wasn’t from BC.

The reality is that if you’re living on income assistance, you are getting a total of $375 as your housing allowance, whereas the average person on income assistance is paying $501 in Victoria. If a landlord were to actually follow the rental tenancy office allowable rents, rents could have increased 30 percent since 2007, the time that this rental income assistance has remained fixed from.

The evidence is very clear. The costs of inaction are simply greater than the costs of action.

I reiterate my question. When will the government commit to (a) increasing that shelter allowance and dealing with British Columbia’s homelessness problem, and (b) providing more affordable housing to actually deal with this problem, which is a tax on our social, health and other justice systems?

RESPONSE

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite, the B.C. Housing budget for capital is actually pretty good for the next number of fiscal years. It has continuously been put in the three-year fiscal plan as we sit down and work with communities like Victoria, identify sites like we have in Victoria for three buildings that we’ve recently done and other buildings we’ve bought and renovated, partnerships that we do with the non-profit sector in order to be able to connect that sector in to being there for the people whose housing they’re going to operate.

I’m happy actually…. To the member opposite, if you want to come and have a visit, we can actually explore some of your ideas. One thing I do know, when we wrote the housing strategy in 2005 — which is, by the way, again the most successful one in this country — we opened it up to being open to ideas.

The whole idea around it was that if we actually saw something in Portland or Utah or somewhere else and we thought it could work here in British Columbia, we were not disinclined at all, in our minds, to steal a good idea that might help the citizens of this province. That’s why the housing ministry, B.C. Housing, has such a dynamic mandate, in order to go out and look for their solutions on behalf of B.C. citizens.

Today was my turn to read a member’s statement in the house. I took the opportunity to talk about the incredible dedication of a group of parents who call themselves “Moms Like Us“. They are hoping to get a new clubhouse facility built somewhere in the CRD. It is clear to me that there is desperate need for such a facility here in the CRD and I am extremely supportive of the Moms Like Us initiative.

My Statement

Madame Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of meeting a group of parents who call themselves “Moms Like Us”. These parents all had something in common — an adult child or family member struggling with mental illness.

Moms Like Us became motivated to advocate for their adult children as they watched them becoming increasingly isolated and dependent.

Moms like us presented me with details of an established program called Clubhouse International with 322 clubhouses worldwide in 33 countries. This program is based on psychosocial rehabilitation, an innovative evidence-based, best-practice model that helps people living with mental illness lead productive lives. The clubhouse motto is a belief that everyone has a right:

1. To a place to come;
2. To meaningful work
3. To meaningful relationships;
4. To a place to return.

Internationally recognized, Fountain House was the first Clubhouse to open in New York City in 1948.  It has since blossomed into a global program that recognizes an individual’s potential through meaningful work and the support of a caring community.

Clubhouse International’s programs of social relationships and meaningful work have literally saved thousands of lives over the past 66 years.  Its program is a beacon of hope for those living with mental illness that are too often consigned to lives of homelessness, imprisonment, social stigma and isolation.

We have three Clubhouses in British Columbia: New Horizons Clubhouse in Port Alberni, Arrowhead Centre, in Sechelt, and Pathways Clubhouse in Richmond.

As the member from Richmond Steveston recently told the house, Pathways Clubhouse undertook an independent audit that showed that for every dollar invested in them there was a societal return on investment of $14. This means that the demand on hospitals, police departments and other emergency services was reduced as a result of having a Clubhouse International in Richmond. Those are the kind of economics we can all get behind.

Honourable Speaker, Moms Like Us are working towards the establishment of a Clubhouse International in the Capital Regional District. I ask that the house join me in wishing them every success in their endeavours.

Quite a number of constituents have written to me expressing serious concerns about the proposed changes to the Societies Act. Here is the action that I have taken so far.

To provide some context, starting in 2009, the Ministry of Finance began a process to review and update the 1996 Societies Act in order to “modernize and update the statute that provides rules for the incorporation and governance of not-for-profit organizations in B.C.”

The Ministry released a White Paper that outlined a number of policy recommendations and included a revised draft of the Societies Act. The public consultation process for this White Paper ended on October 15^th.

During the public consultation period I heard from a large number of constituents (and from others across British Columbia) concerning section 99 of the draft legislation, entitled “Complaints by Public” .

In order to summarize the public feedback I received during the consultation period, I sent a letter to the Minister of Finance on October 16^th to ensure that the public, and my, concerns were brought to the direct attention of the Minister.

October 16^th 2014

Honourable Mike de Jong
Minister of Finance
Parliament Buildings
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Dear Minister de Jong,

I am writing to you with respect to the BC government’s Societies Act White Paper. I have received a fair amount of correspondence from constituents, societies and others across British Columbia who are concerned with the direction laid out in section 99, entitled “Complaints by Public”. I would like to ensure that their, and my, concerns are brought to your attention.

To begin, I am unclear as to what existing problem section 99 is meant to be addressing. The White Paper does not identify any specific issue that was the impetus for this provision being brought forward.

Section 99 of the Societies Act White Paper appears to lay out a mechanism that I believe has enormous potential to be abused. Relying on an extremely vague definition of ‘public interest’, this section could act as a vehicle for an unprecedented period of SLAPP lawsuits against groups that cannot afford to defend themselves.

Societies play a critical role in our province. Many of them have minimal financial resources, are staffed or supported by volunteers, and very limited access to legal support. If enacted into law, Section 99 could be used as a bullying tactic. As a result, Societies would have to operate in a culture where freedom of speech is at risk of litigation. While I am not a lawyer, it strikes me that the constitutionality of Section 99 might be called into question.

I recognize that the Societies Act White Paper is being advanced at this stage to gather public feedback on proposed legislation. Nevertheless, I hope that the Ministry recognizes the substantive concerns that are being expressed regarding section 99.

I sincerely hope that changes will be made to the Act before it is brought forward to the legislature for debate and that a legal opinion is obtained as to the constitutionality of Section 99.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter,

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Weaver
MLA, Oak Bay-Gordon Head