Today the BC NDP delivered the budget for the next fiscal year. Below I reproduce the media release my office issued in response to it. As you will see from the release (reproduced below), I was pleased with Budget 2020 and I look forward to expanding on these initial remarks when I respond in the legislature hopefully tomorrow.

Media Release

MLA Weaver responds to 2020 Budget
For Immediate Release
February 18, 2020

Victoria, BC — The BC NDP’s 2020 Budget is one that invests in the people of British Columbia and charts a path forward for a sustainable economy that works for everyone.

“I’m delighted to see this government continuing to work towards lowering the cost of living for middle class British Columbians,” said Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. “Actions such as the elimination of MSP premiums which I have long advocated for, the construction of new affordable housing units, the raising of earnings exemptions for those on income and disability assistance, and increased funding for childcare and public education should ensure that the benefits of economic growth in BC are widely shared”.

While the 2020 budget introduces several changes that positively impact the lives of British Columbians now, it is also forward looking, making significant investments into the future of the province and in particular today’s youth. Funding dedicated to increasing the supply of teachers, counsellors, and psychologists contribute to the positive social and cognitive development of our children as they move through school.

The creation of the needs-based, up-front BC Access Grant should equalize post-secondary educational opportunities in the province by allowing students to focus on their studies without worrying about how they are going to pay for their tuition. New 24/7 mental health resources for students at post-secondary institutions should no longer place young adults in a position where they feel like they have to choose between their personal well-being and academic success.

“BC’s 2020 budget also makes necessary infrastructure investments, at a time when access to capital is cheap, to manage a growing population while, at the same time, transitioning the province to a low-carbon economy by linking capital expenditures to Clean BC,” adds Weaver.

The construction of new hospitals, bridges, roads, houses, and schools promise to create numerous good, well-paying jobs in all regions of our province in addition to alleviating strains on public services.

“Innovative design and the integration of BC engineered wood products and energy/energy conservation systems into these capital projects demonstrates British Columbia’s ongoing leadership in recognizing that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can be paired with job creation throughout the province,” notes Weaver.

Although the budget does continue to devote resources to projects which I continue to oppose, such as the Site C dam and LNG developments, I am pleased that the government is now demonstrating its commitment to the economy of tomorrow by supporting the emerging bioeconomy, the quantum computing sector, the agri-tech and life sciences. The continued backing of renewable energy projects, ZEVs, and electric aircrafts will make our economic growth largely sustainable.

At its heart, the 2020 budget is one that places people first while embracing the opportunities created by technological and climatic change, ensuring that BC is well positioned to thrive moving forward.

MLA Weaver will monitor the progress and implementation of these budget measures to ensure they benefit the people of British Columbia.

-30-

Media contact
Judy Fainstein
Executive Director
Legislative Office of Andrew Weaver, MLA
+1 250-744-7615 | Judy.Fainstein@leg.bc.ca

Today in the Legislature I rose to provide my response to the BC NDP government’s Speech from the Throne. The throne speech focused largely on identifying the advances that have already been made and pathways forward to build on those advances for the betterment of British Columbia. I spoke in strong support of the throne speech as outlined in the text and video of my response (reproduced below).

Text of My Response

A. Weaver: Thank you to the members of government here who give a little applause as I rise as an independent member to speak in strong support of the throne speech we heard yesterday.

Before I start, I wish to acknowledge and thank government for raising and acknowledging the passing of a number of friends and constituents: Al Martin, a neighbour, a conservationist, a friend, a great British Columbian; Nils Jensen, former Oak Bay mayor, a friend, a great British Columbian; Eli Pasquale, who went to UVic at the same time as me and was in the rival basketball team, as I was in the rival rugby team, who passed away at the young age of 59 — his number 13 has been retired at the University of Victoria — and of course, Paul Fraser, who we all know in this Legislature, who I became very close to over the years. He will be a great loss to all of us and British Columbia in general.

I’d like to start by addressing some of the issues in the throne speech. Now, with respect to the throne speech, it’s quite clear that the throne speech focussed largely on identifying the advances that have already been made and pathways forward to build on those advances for the betterment of British Columbia. Government has, in its throne speech, mentioned that it has already got big money out of politics and strengthened lobbying rules.

As the former leader of the B.C. Green Party, I feel very strongly that these are quite good policies and take great pride in the role that we played in working with government in ensuring that transparency and getting big money out of politics was done early in the term.

I would like to address, before I move on, an issue raised by the member for Kelowna West with respect to closing trade offices. Now, again I’m going to commend government for doing precisely that and doing what virtually every other province in Canada does, which is recognize that you are not a province in isolation of a country and your trade offices should be embedded in national offices to ensure that you capitalize on national opportunity, for which British Columbia has strategic advantage.

The fact that the previous government went rogue alone is quite remarkable. There are still many questions left as to what value was ever achieved from those multi-million-dollar leases for trade offices that were only used for British Columbia. So I commend government for their moves in this regard, and I think many fiscally responsible people will also look at that as a great achievement. It will not affect trade, and if anything, it will expedite the passage of information between provinces and the nation of Canada and enhance trade with our beautiful province.

To health care. I’m very proud of what government has done and the small role we’ve played in some of this — in the issues of MSP, for example. This is one that I personally take great pride in, for it was about five or six years ago that I stood in this Legislature and announced that the B.C. Greens would eliminate MSP as part of our campaign promise.

We feel we deserve a bit of credit for getting both parties — both the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP — to recognize that public support for the elimination of MSP was so strong that really you couldn’t go forward into an election without making that a form of a campaign promise. To see it come to fruition is very, very satisfying, and I thank government for making that happen.

Government has taken the approach, a wise approach in my view, to recognition that, at times now, when capital is cheap, that is the time you use capital to invest in the province. We’re seeing funding of new hospitals and primary care centres. We’re seeing funding of new schools. And I’ll come back to that in a second. This is the time to do it, when the capital is cheap. I think that government deserves a good deal of credit for its ventures down this avenue.

I’m still hoping and still working with government to ensure that they recognize that each and every school and hospital that is built should be viewed through the eyes of innovation, as an opportunity for innovation, to showcase British Columbia technologies, British Columbia–engineered products — we’ve heard that in the throne speech today — as well as British Columbia energy efficiency and British Columbia renewable power.

We’ve got new diagnostic machines and funding for more health care professionals. I can tell you that one of the most important pieces of change that government has done in the last two years in the health care file is opening access to MRIs 24-7.

I personally have benefitted from that, and my wife has benefitted from that as well — many times, in fact. The months and months that people had to wait for diagnostic tools like MRIs was unacceptable, and the steps taken by Minister Dix in this regard truly deserve a lot of credit. We see money going into mental health services. We see money going into funding more professionals, seniors getting direct care.

On the issue of affordability, despite the rhetoric I just heard from the member for Kelowna West, government has done a remarkable job in delivering on the affordable file. We’ve seen a slow tempering of the market, a decrease at the higher end of the market in Vancouver – not a collapse, a tempered decrease, exactly the type of tempered decrease the market can absorb. Much of that artificial speculation that occurred has been tempered. Housing is becoming more affordable, and I look forward to working with government, along the lines as we did with the speculation and vacancy tax, as we move forward to deal with other rental and tenancy issues.

In particular, the speculation tax, which many in this room, including me when it was first introduced, felt was not thought through completely. The final implementation of that, I would argue — and I believe the Minister of Finance would, too, after many hundreds of hours of negotiations back and forth – is working. It’s working so well that there are jurisdictions like Tofino, like West Vancouver, that are asking to be included in such speculation tax to deal with this.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I am hoping….

Yes, to the member who said “Really?” Yes, really. It’s actually….

There are other issues that I would like to, hopefully, see addressed as we move forward in this session with respect to rental, tenancy act issues. You know, one of the things I would like to explore is the notion — and I will be doing this on my blog shortly to get a sense of public opinion — that there is unfairness in the present system right now.

Let us suppose I live in Ontario, and I have a vacation condo in Victoria, and that vacation condo happens to be in a strata that has a “no rental” clause. Well, guess what? I don’t pay the vacancy tax because there’s a no rental clause in my strata. However, if I was the same person’s neighbour in Ontario and I had a vacation condo in a strata that allowed rentals, I would be subject to the speculation tax unless I rented it.

In my view, what we need to do in this province in a timely fashion is follow the lead of Ontario. In Ontario, they’ve eliminated the ability of strata councils to actually have no rental clauses attached to them. But in doing so, they allowed stratas to enable the banning of limited rentals – i.e., Airbnb or vacation rentals – and at the same time, grant to strata council the powers of eviction – the idea being that if there is an absent landlord, who is actually not looking after the property, council has the powers of eviction.

This, in and of itself, will create a vast amount of units. We don’t need to build more empty units. We can go to Metrotown in Burnaby. There are skyscrapers of empty units, with no rental clauses. What we need is we need units to be used. This, in my view, would be the single most important policy that I hope government will deliver upon in this coming session.

I’m also excited by the words that we saw in the throne speech about ICBC and the reforms that are forthcoming. Now, I recall in September of 2017, very shortly after Minister Eby took the role of Attorney General, he stood and he spoke out and said: “I’m not considering no-fault insurance.” At the time, I issued a press release, and I said: “Why would he do this?” Why would you take off the table ideas before you’ve actually looked at the books? Why would you not look at the model from Manitoba, having some of the lowest rates in the country, where they have a no-fault system?

We have the analogy in Saskatchewan, which is slightly different – and I know members from opposition will at some point raise it – in Saskatchewan it used to be no fault, and why over 90 percent of people in Saskatchewan are still no fault, the reason why is because it was no fault for a long time, and then they were allowed to potentially soon opt out of that, at a later date, and only a very few people did.

I think this approach to no fault is certainly going to be one that will get to the bottom of the books of ICBC. I mean, it’s a file that really has been neglected for some time by members of the opposition. I think they have to be very careful when they speak and try to pass blame on the present government in light of what they left behind. I think, in the words of the Attorney General, “a dumpster fire,” it was described as.

Education. You know, we come back to the economy. Again, I know the B.C. NDP like to be branded by the B.C. Liberals as bad for the economy. But we’ve had already balanced budget after balanced budget, and I’m convinced the next budget will be balanced with the triple-a credit rating being maintained and the strongest economy in the country. People want to live here. They want to come to British Columbia. Why? Because we are the most beautiful place in the world to live. We have a strong stable democracy, and we can offer everything.

Schools. Our school system in British Columbia is one of the top in the world. It ranks in the top five year after year in the international PISA assessments, ahead of the much-touted Finland, ahead of the much-touted Quebec. We are the very best. We have some of the best schools and best teachers in the province, and government now has invested substantively in more services for schools as a direct consequence of having to implement the rulings of the Supreme Court.

That, frankly, wasted a decade and, frankly — I’ve said this publicly — has led to a decade of children, a whole generation of children, not getting the services they needed at the times they needed in their early developmental years. From 2001 to 2017, for those 17 years, a generation of school children had their child psychologists cut, their speech pathologists cut, the in-class help cut, class size increases.

What would you expect as a result of that? Well, what you would expect is that as those children age out into adulthood, you’d start to see troubles in society. And lo and behold, guess what, delayed, down road, we’re dealing with an opioid crisis. We’re dealing with a homeless problem and an out of control….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It is not a far reach.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting. One of the members opposite, who is a teacher, doesn’t clearly understand the research in education.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, clearly you don’t, because it is very clear that the interventions in early years of child education are absolutely critical to put the children, particularly in their K-to-3 years, on the right paths for success. If you don’t catch it early, you have to pay down the road. That falls squarely on the B.C. Liberal government.

To the First Nations, I was very proud to be part of this collective group. There is no one individual. Collectively, the passing of UNDRIP legislation last year. I’m looking forward to seeing how that moves forward.

We see in the throne speech words about safety and policing. We see about increased diversity and inclusion and how a human rights commission has now been improved. There’s talk in the throne speech about what’s being done in the arts and culture and museums. Transport and rural development were there.

One of the key things that has been done — again, I’m very pleased with this; this is something we’ve been advocating for, for a long time — is the beginning of taking high-speed broadband into rural communities. You want to stimulate the economy of rural communities? It’s not going to happen until you bring broadband in.

The only way we’re going to compete in the resource world is not to just dig dirt out of the ground and think, somehow, we’re going to beat, say, Indonesia, which doesn’t internalize the social and environmental externalities we value here. The way we do that is we’re smarter, more efficient and cleaner. We do that by bringing the technology sector together with the resource sector. We do that by focusing on the value-added. We do that focusing on efficiency, cleaner and selling those technologies elsewhere, like MineSense, Axine or others. I was so very pleased, so very pleased to see that recognized in this throne speech as a direction this government is going.

I feel that this government is on the right track. It understands where the future of our economy is. It doesn’t lie in continuing to dig dirt out of the ground. It never will. It lies in innovation. It lies in the harvesting our resources in innovative ways by bringing the tech sector together with that.

You know, a member opposite lauded the $2.7 billion surplus that the last Liberal government left, and seemed to think that that was a good thing. It’s remarkable that this was actually raised — that this $2.7 billion number was touted as a good thing to have as a surplus — when we have the highest child poverty rates in the country, when we have over a decade with disability and welfare rates not being increased, where we have homelessness getting out of control and we have a $2.7 billion surplus. It’s outrageous fiscal mismanagement at its very, very worst.

The Liberals, who claim to be these managers of fiscal prowess, actually demonstrated fiscal incompetence in their budgeting in that last year. We see that not only in the $2.7 billion surplus, but we see that in the money-laundering issue going on, we see that in the out-of-control speculation in the real estate market, and we see that with what has happened to some of our most vulnerable, as they’ve been on the streets.

So I say that B.C. Liberals, as I said a while back, needed to be put in a time-out for some time. I’m still convinced that that time-out is not over yet. There needs to be a longer time-out until such time as the opposition starts to recognize that you have to govern for the people of this province, not for those who are your funders, not for the elite, not for the 1 percent. If you start governing for the 1 percent, you end up seeing what we see all around us today.

We see very disturbing trends emerging. We see society splitting into two ways. We see the kind of Trump, and we see the anti-Trump. We see these two kinds of polarizing views of society, the Trump far right and the anti-Trump, almost anarchist. This is a very, very dangerous situation that the world is moving towards. It does not help when we polarize this place and continue to suggest that one side is far better than the other. We must, for the betterment of all our society, start to recognize that we are in turbulent times.

When unruly mobs like this feel like they’re not being heard, it doesn’t lead well. We have ample, ample examples in human history about how it ends up. I don’t need to do history lessons here. The way it ends up is when income inequality gets out of control — when, for those who have, compared to those who don’t have, that gap grows more and more — that sows the seeds for discontent. Each and every time in human history where that has happened, revolution has occurred.

We don’t want that to happen in Canada. We’re a nation of peaceful people. We’re a nation built on immigrants. We’re a nation of openness and of multiculturalism, of awareness, of progressive policies.

We must govern for everybody and recognize that there are some in our society who have a bit too much — maybe some of them have earned it hard; some of them have just inherited it — and there are some who have just lost the lottery of life. It’s not like they knew they were going to be born into poverty. They just lost the lottery of life. Others might have been born into and won the lottery of life. That doesn’t mean you’re a better or a worse person.

As legislators, in my view, it behooves us to recognize that we have a duty to ensure that society is stable, that we actually help those who need the help, and that we say, to those who have some more: “You know what? Our society, collectively, is better if you give us a little bit more to help those who don’t, because we know what happens in human history if the elite go off over here and everyone else is down here.”

You might want to ask: “What happened in Russia?” Or you could talk about the French Revolution. You could talk about myriad examples like this around the world. This is not what I want to see British Columbia and Canada become.

Coming down to the direct quote from the speech. I want to read this, because to me…. I was blown away, to be blunt. I was very pleased to see this. Directly from the speech, it says this:

A strong economy cannot be built on a foundation of rampant real estate speculation. It cannot be won in a race to the bottom, with minimum standards and fewer workplace protections. And it cannot be gained through windfall profits earned on the backs of low-wage workers.

Instead, a strong economy comes from good-paying jobs that raise family incomes and everyone’s standard of living. It is built with quality public services as a cornerstone, services that help B.C. grow, attract and keep its skilled workforce.

“A strong economy is rooted in competitiveness, a necessary ingredient for success in today’s global marketplace. And it is in harmony with government’s commitments to fight climate change and achieve meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

“These are the values that guide this government’s actions to build a sustainable economy that puts people first. The challenges we face, from worsening weather to global economic headwinds, make this work more urgent than ever.”

I’ll stop there and pause there and say that those words are remarkable. It is essentially saying, in the throne speech, that government gets what the challenges are. Then it moves on to say how it plans to deal with those challenges.

“As this government charts a new course to a low-carbon economy, powered by CleanBC, British Columbians can rest assured that not only will we weather these storms; we will create the conditions for people and industry to thrive.”

“CleanBC is a critical part of this government’s strategy to grow a sustainable economy with good jobs and opportunities for people. It’s been one year since CleanBC was launched, and British Columbians are starting to see that the way to a cleaner, better future is by innovating and working together.”

The change that has happened in one year is remarkable, whether it be as simple as just saying: “Look at how many electric vehicles there are….” Now, you might say: “Oh, electrics vehicles. Whatever.” That’s stimulating the economy. We have B.C. builders of electric vehicles.

We now have Harbour Air seeing the opportunity and seeing British Columbia with the signal that this government has sent, the signal that it sent to the world, that we want to be leaders in clean tech. Harbour Air, the first electric airplane in B.C. This is what you get.

We have Corvus building batteries now for Norwegian ships. We have Portable Electric building diesel generator replacements. Innovation in British Columbia is growing, and the single-biggest seed for that innovation is signals that governments can send saying: “We’re here to support you and nurture you.”

The creation of the innovation commissioner — one of my very dear platforms — has been very, very successful as well. If you track the additional moneys British Columbia is now levering out of Ottawa, we historically have been dreadful — and it falls squarely on the B.C. Liberals — at leveraging the pools of money that exist in Ottawa if you have matching funds here in British Columbia.

One of the first things, in discussions with the innovation commissioner, we talked about was ways to actually lever that. It’s happening now. That bodes well for innovation, and that bodes well for the B.C. economy.

You know, it further says here…. Well, it said in the speech…. It talked about the innovation commissioner as well. Also, it talks about that the government is going to have plastics action plan and climate adaptation plan. It’s pretty clear that the government is taking this issue seriously and that it will work with business to promote B.C. businesses as competitive suppliers of low-carbon products. There’s a lot in those small words.

We know that there are consumers out there who want to buy products that are low carbon. We know there are businesses who want to be viewed as benefit companies, which the legislation that was passed by government…. Well, I guess it was my legislation that we all passed. These small signals actually have much greater influence and emphasis on what actually happens in our economy. We’re seeing that now.

We see that government has a potential here to actually stimulate. It’s mentioned in the throne speech that it plans to do that by saying: “Okay. We as government can’t tell you what to do unless we’re willing to model the leadership we expect in others.” Government is going to start using, where possible, B.C.-based engineered wood products in its construction.

Government could continue to advance this by focusing its procurement process on B.C. innovation in a diversity of areas, and I’m convinced that that will happen as we move ahead.

You know, I don’t want to dwell on LNG, because, to be perfectly blunt, I will believe it when I see it.

I know we’re having fights over the Coastal GasLink pipeline. I know people are touting LNG Canada and the, let’s say, $40 billion investment — which it really isn’t because most of that’s being built in Asia and brought up on tide line and then getting steel tariff exemptions, etc.

However, the market for LNG is in the dumps. It doesn’t make fiscal sense right now, and I still will argue that you might get something at some point, but I wouldn’t be counting your pennies on getting any money from LNG. The deep-well credits, $3.2 billion accrued to be used against future royalties…. I mean, there are no royalties coming from natural gas in our province.

The construction of Site C, of course, means that we the ratepayers, not the ratepayers in Kelowna, mind you, because they’re with Fortis…. We the ratepayers in other parts of B.C. are going to end up paying 15 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity that we sell to LNG Canada for 5 cents and change a kilowatt hour. We know that there is going to be no LNG income tax act, so we know they’re going to get exemptions from carbon tax increases.

This scale of subsidy, in my view, is unacceptable. But even given that, I’ll stand here and say I don’t believe LNG will ever be delivered out of Kitimat, because the market simply will not be there. For these multi-billion-dollar companies, they kick the can — $1 billion here, $10 billion there. That’s the cost of doing business. Let’s see what actually happens down the road.

You know, I’ve been to a number of natural resource forums over the years. I’ve been a strong proponent of mining in this province, but again, mining in this province, as articulated and realized in the throne speech…. We will never compete by just going in with a pickaxe and digging dirt out of the ground. We’ve got to be smarter. We get companies like MineSense doing that. We find ways and means of extracting ore in clean ways that use less energy, that use less water, that actually make us more able to reclaim the land. That could be done so more efficiently.

You can grow an economy by making it bigger, by building more stuff, or you can grow an economy by building the same amount of stuff more efficiently. That is where our success will lie, through efficiencies and cleanliness and exporting the knowledge we have developed here.

I come to B.C. Hydro, which was mentioned, albeit passingly, in the throne speech. There’s still a lot of work that needs to be done in B.C. Hydro. Over the course of this session, I hope to use my question period times to focus on specific examples, in this regard, of the opportunities that are potentially lost, as B.C. Hydro seems to be a little bit of a behemoth that needs to be reined in, in some sense, to ensure that we actually allow competition, allow innovation in the energy sector, and we allow the partnership of small projects, existing projects with users of energy as well.

Forestry — another sector that was mentioned. I’m very pleased to see that the government recently got the settlement on Vancouver Island. That’s good news. Honestly, I think it’s very rich, again…. I mean, I don’t want to dis on the B.C. Liberals. I’m reacting to the comments I heard from the member for Kelowna West, who basically hurled abuse about the forest industry on the B.C. NDP. For heaven’s sake, we lost 30,000-something jobs. We’ve known mills were closing under their watch as well.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that affects all of us. We need to put our collective minds together to think about how best to rejuvenate British Columbia’s forest industry. Is it really the tenure system? Does that really apply in the 21st century? I would suggest not. I would suggest that the tenure-licensing system has been the cause of the death of a lot of our forest industry. What we need to do is move to more of a temporary lease or more of a community-based approach to forest logging.

With that said, taken together, I’m absolutely thrilled to support this throne speech. I feel very pleased that some small part of that has been accomplished through the good work that was done through the collaboration that I have had and I know my former colleagues have had with a number of ministries. In my case, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance, who I held the files for, the Ministry of Attorney General, the Premier of course, the Housing Minister, Health ministers, Energy and Mines, who I’m really excited about looking forward to working with on the innovation file.

We’ve already started communication in that regard. I think this is a great appointment. The former Minister of Energy and Mines is moving to be the minister of innovation. I think that’s exactly what that ministry needs. We’re already met and ready to go.

I thank you for your attention. I look forward to a positive vote on the throne speech.

Video of Response

It’s been a week since the legislature rose for the summer and it’s taken me that entire time to muster up the energy to write about the BC Liberal antics on the last day of the session.

Those who have been following the daily proceedings of the BC Legislature will know that on Wednesday May 29, 2019 the Speaker decided it would be prudent to back up several computers in the legislature and store the data off site. While the BC Liberals spun themselves into a tizzy over what can only be described as normal and due process in light of the ongoing Auditor General and police investigations into the conduct of several senior legislative employees, their overall behaviour has left me dumbfounded.

The backups occurred after work to allow the employees to continue using their computers during the day while the legislature was sitting. Stories have emerged about how the Leader of the Official Opposition was hiding around corners and popping out to photograph the Speaker’s Chief of Staff as he walked around the building.  When asked why the computers needed to be backed up, the Speaker’s Chief of Staff told the Vancouver Sun:

“[The Speaker] simply wanted to ensure that all records were properly stored. He said he recalled five instances in the past where information, documentation and evidence ‘vanished into thin air.'”

A Liberal staffer also slept in their office during the evening of May 29 to prevent anyone from entering out of apparent fear of some sort of ongoing Legislative Inquisition. And on Thursday morning, chaos ensued as the BC Liberals initiated an all out assault on the integrity of the Speaker. Those who read what follows will probably have the same questions that I have. What on earth are the BC Liberals afraid of?

Thursday morning started the same as it always does. Visitors to the gallery were introduced and then we moved to Members’ Statements. Each day the legislature sits, three government and three opposition MLAs give two minute statements in which they typically celebrate something or someone in their riding. On Thursday morning, the Leader of the Official rose and delivered a bizarre rebuke of the Speaker’s apparent actions. Ironically, he concluded his statement with these words:

“We must work to make this a better place to conduct the business of the people of British Columbia as the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia. Part of that involves the continuity of the democratic process. So question period must proceed. That is part of the democratic process. This House must sit, but this House must also sit until the air is cleared about the events of the last 24 hours.“

And then the Liberals proceeded to boycott the rest of their Members’ Statements. As such, a number of government MLAs and I scrambled to offer impromptu statements to fill the void that had been created.  Mine was on the topic of global warming and intergenerational equity.

During the lunch break from 12:00 to 13:30 the BC Liberals continued their attack on the Speaker. First, the Leader of the Official Opposition offered up one of their own members to serve as a new Speaker if the BC NDP and BC Green caucuses would agree (we did not). Then, their house leader decided to hold a press conference wherein she released handwritten notes she had made at a House Leaders’ meeting with the Speaker the day before.

What’s remarkable about the release of the notes is that the day before, the three house leaders agreed that the BC Liberal house leader would be the note taker. But those same notes were never circulated among the house leaders for approval before they were publicly released. Our house leader, Sonia Furstenau, was incensed and immediately distanced herself from them in a hastily put together press conference we organized immediately after the lunch break on May 30.

But it didn’t end there.

The afternoon sitting was to continue with the debates on Budget Estimates for the Office of the Premier. Recall that I had risen on May 29 for 20 minutes to ask the Premier a series of questions concerning demand side measures that affect the price of gasoline. Initially I had requested a full hour of time as I had a suite of other questions that I had hoped to raise on a variety of other topics. In discussion with the BC Liberals (who we schedule time with) they were very adamant that I only be given 20 minutes as they had so many questions that they wanted to ask. There are battles that you pick in the legislature and this was not one of the ones I wanted to waste my energy on. As such, I agreed to rise for only 20 minutes on the Wednesday.

So you can imagine my surprise when I walked into the chamber after Sonia and I held our hastily put together press conference on Thursday to witness Ravi Khalon, the BC NDP MLA for Delta North, asking the Premier a series of questions. I subsequently learned that the BC Liberals had decided to boycott the rest of Premier’s estimates (and shut down debates in the other committee rooms too), presumably to try and force the house to adjourn before the Lieutenant Governor arrived later in the day to give Royal Assent to a number of bills. As such, the NDP and BC Green MLAs had to spontaneously fill the remaining time with questions to the Premier.

I took the opportunity to express my frustration with the behaviour of the BC Liberals (see jesting exchange video and text reproduced below). Seeing as I didn’t have any background research with me, I could not ask the more detailed questions I had originally planned to. Instead, and to kill a bit of time to allow the NDP MLAs to put together a speaking list, I followed up with two sports questions and one more serious open-ended question. In the latter, I asked the Premier if he could reflect upon the last two years and perhaps identify some of the high points that he believes are important areas where the government and the B.C. Green caucus have worked together for the betterment of the people in British Columbia (see text and video of Premier’s reflection below). I thought this question was particularly timely as it was the two year anniversary of the date that he and I signed the Confidence and Supply Agreement underpinning his minority government.

As the time approached when we were expecting the Lieutenant Governor to arrive in the precinct, the next stage of the BC Liberal antics got underway. After the passage of third reading of a couple of bills (that the BC Liberals did not support), BC Liberal MLA after BC Liberal MLA rose on a point of personal privilege. For the better part of an hour, virtually ever single BC Liberal MLA, including the Assistant Deputy Speaker (BC Liberal MLA for Coquitlam-Burke Mountain Joan Isaacs) read out a statement along the lines of:

“I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege. I have become aware of behavior and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties.

I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedoms as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions, which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and contempt for this House.“

While they proceeded to filibuster the closing of the session, the Lieutenant Governor was kept waiting.

At 18:05 the Lieutenant Governor finally arrived to a house void of virtually every BC Liberal MLA. All but three had decided to leave and boycott Royal Assent.

This was perhaps the most disgraceful and disrespectful behaviour I have witnessed in my six years in the legislature. Each and every MLA swears allegiance to the Crown and the Lieutenant Governor is Her Majesty’s representative in British Columbia. As the Lieutenant Governor walked in, it was obvious that she was visibly surprised by the absence of the BC Liberal MLAs. It was also obvious that the BC NDP and BC Green MLAs were visibly uncomfortable with what was going on. The Lieutenant Governor put on a brave face, gave Royal Assent to several bills (including one of my private members’ bills) and quickly left the building without the customary hand shakes and exchange of pleasantries with MLAs.

Looking back on this last day, it is clear to me that two things need to happen.

1) The BC Liberals, and in particular their Leader, need to offer a formal apology to the Lieutenant Governor for their disrespectful behaviour. There is simply no excuse for what transpired on the last day of the house. I honestly don’t know how Mr. Wilkinson sees himself as Leader of “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition“. There was nothing ‘Loyal’ about his party’s behaviour last Thursday.

2) Joan Isaacs needs to immediately resign as Assistant Deputy Speaker. Failing that, I will almost certainly bring in a motion to have her replaced in the fall. It is unconscionable that she would undermine the non partisan nature of the Speaker’s office by reading out the above statement while wearing her Assistant Deputy Speaker gowns in the chamber. This is now the second time that she broken longstanding tradition and worn a partisan hat in her non partisan role.

It’s unfortunate that the BC Liberals continue to behave the way they have been in the legislature. The province deserves an effective opposition that respects, not flouts, the integrity of our institution. Their response to the Speaker’s desire to protect data for ongoing investigations was over the top and positively bizarre. It leaves me wondering why?

Videos of Exchange

Text of Jesting Exchange

A. Weaver: My humble apologies to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. There are some burning questions I have for the Premier, in light of the fact that I had requested an hour’s time of the Premier’s estimates. I was told by members opposite that I could only have half an hour, because they had too many questions to ask.

Now I see that they decide not to ask questions. Yet another example of us listening to them….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, come to order.

A. Weaver: Not having them agree to one thing and not following through.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

A. Weaver: As the Leader of the Third Party, it is my right to ask questions. I respected the jurisdiction of the official opposition to have more time, because they had so many burning, urgent questions that they felt it was appropriate for me to rise at 6:30 for 20 minutes last night when I knew I had an hour.

I have three very important questions for the Premier. I’m sure all British Columbians want to know. To the Premier, who do you want to win the basketball game tonight?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve become accustomed to questions not necessarily related to the office budget of the Premier, so I’m happy to answer this question as well. It speaks to something that all Canadians are passionate about. I myself, was a university basketball player. I’m a big fan of hoops. I’m a huge fan of the Vancouver Grizzlies. Before that, the Seattle SuperSonics. They’re both gone now. Go, Raptors, go!.

A. Weaver: On this important line of question, I have, for most of my life participated in hockey pools. In fact, I won a hockey pool one. I won $10,000 once. It was quite remarkable. I was very pleased.

However, this year I had chosen Boston against St. Louis in the final, but I got knocked out in the first round. My question to the Premier is: who does he want to win the Stanley Cup this year?

Hon. J. Horgan: If I had consulted with community liaison member Blair Lekstrom who is very ably helping us with caribou issues in the Peace country, he would have said the Boston Bruins. He had the audacity to wear a Boston Bruins jersey into our meeting earlier this week.

I certainly couldn’t support that initiative because of the 2011 outcome in Vancouver, but I think St. Louis is long overdue. It seems an ideal place to send the Stanley Cup.

Text of Premier’s Reflection

A. Weaver: On a more serious note, I just would like to ask an honest question here. As the Premier will know, we’ve been together under the CASA agreement for the last two years. There have been low points and there have been high points. I’m wondering if he could reflect upon the last two years and perhaps identify to the Legislature some of the high points that he believes are important areas where the government and this B.C. Green caucus have worked together for the betterment of the people in British Columbia. Perhaps he could elucidate that for the members of the gallery there who would like to learn about some of the good work that has been done.

I can understand it will take the Premier some time to reflect upon this, because there is so much good work that has been done. I really believe the Premier might need a few minutes to reflect upon the good work that’s been done.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, my colleague in the CASA agreement, for his question. It has been two years plus a day since we signed the agreement, a historic agreement in British Columbia, that’s led to stable government, positive outcomes for British Columbians in every corner of the province.

It’s difficult to point to one highlight, but one I know that the member will be most satisfied with is the development of CleanBC, which was absolutely integral to the foundation of a climate action plan that leads the continent. He and the Green caucus were critical to making that happen. I know members on the other side of the House as well, leading the first carbon price in North America set by the former government…. Their enthusiasm has waned over time for that, but I know that they laid a solid foundation. I give full credit to Premier Gordon Campbell for having the courage to start that initiative. I’m excited that we’re here to take the next step and lead the country and, in fact, the continent in that regard.

When I think about…. Again, the member comes from the post-secondary sector, so he would also agree with me that eliminating fees for English language learning and adult basic education was also critical to reducing barriers, eliminating obstacles to people realizing their full potential. At a time when we have a skills shortage, it’s important that we get people back into the classroom so that they can get the skills they need to be full participants in the economy, for their families, for their communities and, in fact, for the province.

We also have done a number of initiatives to cap tuition fees, to ensure that we have eliminated interest on student debt, on B.C. student debt, which I think is something that would be applauded by all members of this House. One area that I’m particularly excited about, the member for Mount Pleasant, the member for Kootenay West and I were at Vancouver Island University in the first couple of weeks of our time in government — at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo — announcing the tuition waiver for kids in care.

Of course, for those who are unaware of the program, that is an opportunity for those who have been in foster homes, have been wards of the state. When they age out, oftentimes they see an abyss rather than an opportunity. By waiving tuition fees, we’ve allowed kids in care to see hope in their future, to see opportunity in their future. That’s not just good for the individual. It’s good for the broader community. I know our colleagues in CASA were very supportive of that.

Arts and culture is another area that I’m very proud of. Reinvesting in the B.C. Arts Council, making sure that we’re doing everything we can to get the payback that we all see from arts and culture.

I’ve been to a number of film studios, in my time as Premier to see firsthand just the enormous number of jobs that we get in this sector. I know my deputy and I are ad idem on this question. We see electricians, carpenters. actors, extras — extras that get their big break by being at the right place at the right time on a Netflix film or a series or whatever it might be. That launches their careers.

Deadpool coming to B.C., not once, but twice and, let’s hope, three times. Probably the defining moment for me was just last week, Member, when I was visiting a studio in Vancouver that did the dragons for Game of Thrones. Now, not a lot of people know that. But the CGI for Game of Thrones was developed and designed in Vancouver, which had a whole host of other spinoffs for the community. Subcontractors creating more jobs, good high-paying jobs, whether it’s coders, whether it be artists, and that’s all happening here in British Columbia — not just in Vancouver, by the way, but also throughout B.C.

On the economy, of course, the member will know that we put in place an innovation commissioner to make sure that we’re talking about the economy of the future. We also, of course, are very mindful that traditional industries built British Columbia. We’re working hard to make sure that forestry, mining and other resource industries can prosper and flourish. Agriculture is very important to the member. He supports the agricultural land reserve. He supports strengthening tools like that for all British Columbians.

I know the member would like me to go on.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: You would? Okay. Creating a ministry…. I didn’t know I was filibustering myself, but here I find myself. It’s been a while. Excuse me.

On the housing side, the member is devastated, as I am, to see homelessness proliferating across B.C. But with modular housing programs, we’ve seen the hard-to-house and homeless finding a place to hang their hat and to start a new life, and it’s been transformative in places like Surrey. The Whalley strip was infamous, and now that’s been changed. Nanaimo. We’re working very hard on that. One of the largest tent cities in Vancouver Island’s history. No longer there. Service is in place for the people that have been moved into modular housing.

We’ve increased a whole host of other issues with respect to seniors. We’re demanding accountability for staffing standards in care centres. There’s more support for Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, increased length of home support visits, capital funding to strengthen senior centres.

A systematic review of care centre staffing levels. This is something that the Minister of Health was absolutely pivotal on. We remember back to the turn of the century, when the government of the day was ripping up contracts, making it more difficult for seniors to find care facilities that were appropriately staffed with enthusiastic workers — caregivers that were not just coming to a job, but coming to care for our moms, our dads and our loved ones. An underrespected and underpaid area of our economy, and we’ve taken steps through the leadership of the Minister of Health to achieve that, with the support of the Green caucus.

We ended the disability clawback for transportation for bus passes. I know the member responsible for poverty reduction was the lead on that, but we had full support of the Green caucus in that regard. And a whole bunch of other stuff.

Anti-SLAPP legislation. I know the member and I talked about anti-SLAPP legislation in the first session. There were some challenges. A decision, a determination made in Ontario, made the bill that we were working on together on this side of the House a bit in doubt. We worked with the Attorney General, leg. counsel and the Green caucus to make sure that we could have anti-SLAPP legislation here British Columbia to protect those who are standing up for their communities.

We’ve made a whole host of other changes. The reduction of PST on electricity was absolutely critical to industry and something that should have happened a long, long time ago. That’s created more opportunities as well. I think there’s more here, but I think if the member has more questions, I’ll take that….

On Wednesday of this week I rose during budget estimate debates for the Office of the Premier to ask a number of questions concerning demand side measures that affect the price of gas. Prior to me rising, the Leader of the Official Opposition had spent a fair amount of time accusing the Premier of somehow causing the recent rise in the price of gas. I was profoundly disappointed by the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition. It appeared to me that he was more interested in trying to score cheap political points and finding gotcha moments than he was in trying to probe the supply and demand side of the price of gas.

When my turn came, I asked a series of questions to understand how the recent increase in the price of gas might have affected transit ridership, active transportation and the purchase or electric vehicles. The answers I received from the Premier were very clear — there has been a great effect.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I’d like to start by saying I think it’s an important anniversary today. I believe it’s the two-year anniversary of the signing of our CASA agreement. With that I would suggest that this has been a rather unique time in the province of British Columbia with a minority government. I would suggest that the Premier would probably agree that the relationship has been fruitful, collaborative, at times challenging, without a doubt, but nevertheless, reaffirming the commitment that we made in CASA to work together.

That doesn’t mean we agree on everything. It means we that have a process to reflect upon our disagreements, and I would just like to canvass a few of the issues here. In particular, I’d like to start off with some of the issues with respect to the gas prices. I was listening with interest to the comments coming from the official opposition. I was somewhat flummoxed by the kind of apparent petro-stumping that I heard, and somewhat concerned that I did not perceive there to be a desire to actually support British Columbia in standing up for British Columbians, as opposed to supporting the gouging that is going on by certain elements.

I noticed that over the last few months, the Premier and this government have come up under fire, frankly, about the rising gas prices, and the official opposition has done what they can to try to distort the issue — frankly, to blame government — appealing to the worst type of populist politics.

I want to start my questioning by asking the Premier: what tools does he have to affect gas prices?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the leader of the Green Party, for his questions and his interventions here today in the budget estimates for the Premier’s office.

Firstly, I’d like to say that we’re trying to find ways to bring down the cost of gasoline by talking to suppliers, finding ways to bring more supply into our region. That means talking…. Again, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, we’re working on a plan that has not come yet to fruition, but I think in the next while, if I give it time, I’ll be held to that. But we’re working hard to try to find a way to increase our ability to affect what’s in the pipeline.

What we’ve been trying to do is work with the federal government, get an acknowledgment from our federal government, who now does own the pipe. Although they can’t dictate what goes into it, they have a bunch of mechanisms at their disposal to help us explain how the price went up so high and what we can do to bring it down in the short term.

But in the long term, the member will know, and he and I are both enthusiastic about this, we’re going to be moving away from gasoline in the first place. We want to see more people in electric vehicles. We’re putting in place, as he knows, incentives to see more people using electric cars. I drive a hybrid. You drive a full electric. We’re building charging stations right across British Columbia. I think we have over 1,500 now, or somewhere in that neighbourhood, right across the province.

We’re putting in place infrastructure to reduce the costs over the long term and also have a better environmental outcome. But that’s not happening today. Sorry, Member. The public expects, rightly so, that we will be doing what we can to do to bring on more supply so that prices can go down, so we can make that transition over a longer period of time.

A. Weaver: I concur. I accept the arguments brought forward by the Premier with respect to the ability to affect what’s in the pipeline. I found compelling the arguments that discuss the fact that in fact, the Trans Mountain was not about enhanced refined capacity. It’s all about increased diluted bitumen.

The Premier has referred to a multitude of things that could happen. One of the things that I have a concern on, and I’m going to frame a question in this regard, is that if we look back historically, virtually every year, as long as I have known, gas prices go up in the spring, and they come back in the fall.

The Premier will remember back in…. I forget. Whenever the Axe the Tax campaign was initiated by a previous government, it was during the summer months, right at the peak price, when there were record prices being set. The kind of rhetoric associated with that campaign kind of fell flat as the fall approached, because the price of gas came down.

My question to the Premier is: does he think it is prudent for a government to have a market intervention along the lines of what the member of the official opposition is stating, in light of the fact that essentially every year, we know that the price of gas goes down as we move out of the summer season, and in fact will fall naturally because of traditional supply and demand arguments and enhanced refining after, basically, the long weekend in September?

Hon. J. Horgan: I agree with the member’s premise, but this year seems to be, without any doubt, anomalous relative to others. That 40 cent increase, when only one penny a litre can be put to the carbon tax that we increased on April 1 — that is unusual. There is always an increase in demand during the travelling season. You and I have talked about that. I agree with you. But it’s never been that large. That’s why, when I asked my deputy minister about the margin question, the refining margin, why it had gone from 2½ cents to 24 cents, what happened there? And we did our best through inquiries to get an answer to that question, but we can’t compel people to testify. The Utilities Commission can, and that’s why we’ve punted the question over to them.

In the meantime, we need to continue to talk about how people can get out of their cars. That means investing in transit, which we’re doing in a big way, not just in the Lower Mainland but right across B.C. It means giving incentives to get off of fossil fuels and on to cleaner energy alternatives for our transportation needs. These are all long-term goals that we have in our plan, that you and I worked on together with the Minister of Environment as part of CleanBC. But for today, when people are looking at their summer season, they’re pretty unhappy about this, and I absolutely feel that and understand it. And we are trying to find ways to have temporary relief through mechanisms that we’ve been working on as well as coordination and cooperation from the federal government.

But you’re absolutely right: these cycles are traditional. And the Leader of the Opposition and his crew are saying that it’s a tax question, among others. That’s not the case. Do we have a significant amount of tax in our gasoline — federal transportation, TransLink and so on? Yes, we do, but that does not explain these wild swings, seasonal swings that you’ve suggested.

A. Weaver: I agree with the Premier. The refining margin in British Columbia seems to be out of whack with the rest of the country. I’m hoping that the B.C. Utilities Commission is able to explore this. I look forward to the results.

But on that note, I noticed that the official opposition was focusing on increasing supply, increasing supply, increasing supply. And at one point, they kind of walked away from that. They started introducing this kind of Marxist logic about introducing a price cap, which was just outrageous coming from a free market party. Unbelievable. I think they’ve walked away from this price cap.

Anyway, my question is on the demand side then. I suspect, knowing that, the last time we had some price hikes and the widespread move towards alternate forms of transportation, which did have a legacy effect…. I’m wondering if the Premier has any statistics about uptakes of electric vehicles, uptakes of transit ridership or uptakes of other modes of active transportation that have arisen as a direct consequence of the rising price of gas, and whether or not this has affected the demand side of the equation and whether or not, in fact, demand is dropping in British Columbia.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m just asking if we can get the uptick in people using transit, because it will be significant. The member is quite right. In times of crisis, people modify their behavior. They do different things. They don’t go, maybe, out to the grocery store every other day. They wait, or they buy larger amounts so they’re not travelling as much.

But I can say, on our incentives to get people into electric vehicles, as you’ll know, we had to increase that budget three times last year, which means that there’s a big demand for people to get out of the lineup for gasoline and a big demand to get into the future, which is electric vehicles. Prices are coming down. They need to come down further so that more people can get into electric vehicles. But people are voting with their feet on this question, taking up the incentives that government is providing. The federal government is now involved as well. This is very good news.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: The transit numbers are coming. Because we’re short of time, perhaps I’ll just make sure that I can get those numbers to you and I can quantify the three increases. I think we had the budget number in February. We increased in September, Minister of Finance? And then again in November.

The money is available, which is unprecedented to have a program that you increase not once but twice during the course of that fiscal year.

A. Weaver: I just want to canvass just a little more on the gas prices. I think it’s important, because we had so much focus on the supply side and, I would argue, not enough focus on the supply side. The numbers I had heard I got from good sources. I’m hoping to confirm. I recognize that it may be a little outside the scope of the Premier’s estimates and be more into Energy and Mines.

I’ve heard that this year, upwards of 10 percent of all new vehicles in British Columbia have been electric, and pushing 15 percent in the last month. Can the Premier confirm these numbers, as to whether I’m in the right ballpark?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member is quite right. We’ve seen a continued increase in demand, and supply is now having challenges. Providers are having longer wait times to get vehicles. Actually, the member for Delta North managed to get his electric vehicle ahead of you. That’s because there is so much demand.

That, of course, means that Detroit — I say Detroit as the amorphous auto sector — is changing their production plans because they see a change in the marketplace. We see that with the incentives that I talked about, and we’ll be able to provide those numbers to you in some detail afterwards. But there has been a steady increase in demand for non–fossil fuel transportation mechanisms, and I think that is all good news for us. That, of course, requires industry to recognize that, and they have. But because of these longer wait times, they realized they have got to build more cars faster.

A. Weaver: The Premier mentioned the member for Delta North, and I am very jealous. The member for Delta North and I both ordered Hyundai Konas. I did about three months beforehand. He got his about one month before, and mine isn’t even here yet. He was able to go to a dealer that actually ordered them proactively instead of reactively. The Premier is quite right. The supply for these vehicles is troubling.

I’m wondering, on the issue of demand again, to what extent the Premier has explored or with his office explored the work that was done, the report that was done on mobility pricing in the greater Vancouver area. I’m wondering if he’s had any thoughts about where government is going in terms of the issue of mobility pricing — whether or not they’re thinking of that in Metro Vancouver or not.

Hon. J. Horgan: Just on the previous question, May is not finished yet, as you know. So 15 percent of the vehicles sold in May were light-duty EVs. That is unprecedented, as the member knows, and speaks well for the future. I think gas prices are a part of that, absolutely. People are saying: “Well, this might be the time to make that leap.”

We’ve been reducing costs for people — reducing medical services premiums, eliminating them; eliminating tolls; reducing fees for child care. But then on the toll question, the reason we eliminated the tolls…. It was just one area, one piece of infrastructure. When other pieces of infrastructure were being built, there was no toll ascribed to them. And the federal government, of course, has a policy that they will not fund infrastructure that has tolling on it. That meant that the Massey project, for example, was solely on the back of the provincial government.

TransLink has established a mobility committee, and they’ve been working diligently, I guess, for quite some time now. They were supposed to report back in the summer of 2019. We look forward to hearing from the region, the densest part of the province, with what their plans are. This is going to be largely an issue to be dealt with by residents in the Lower Mainland. Of course, we need to work with TransLink, with the Mayors Council to make sure that any mobility program that comes forward makes sense to the travelling public and that it is not onerous.

A. Weaver: To explore this a little further, the Premier mentioned the issue of the Massey Tunnel replacement, and he’s referred to this recently. As an issue, of course, we support the Premier in this regard. The bridge was…. I just didn’t quite understand it; twinning of the tunnel was more sensible.

My question to the Premier is this. As government is exploring this option — and I understand they’re doing it through consultation — are they considering active modes of transportation in the Massey Tunnel as well? Right now you can’t really get across that south arm of the Fraser with bikes and walking. I’m wondering if that is in the cards for a Massey Tunnel expansion if it happens.

Hon. J. Horgan: Yes, it is, Member. I was excited last week when I learned that the regional mayors have come to a consensus that they need to work together to address the congestion problem at Massey. Both the member and I are Vancouver Island members, so when we enter into the Lower Mainland, our first introduction to the challenges of transportation is the Massey Tunnel. That’s our way off the island. Get off the ferry, go through the tunnel, and you’re on your way into Metro. So we’re very seized of that.

The Minister of Transportation is working on that. We’ve got a study underway that will include multimodal transportation. We don’t want to just have the same old, same old, but we need to find a way to get it done in a cost-effective manner. The federal government will participate provided there’s no tolling infrastructure. Now, how mobility pricing fits into that, I think, is a discussion for, I would expect, after the federal election in October. We’ll see what the outcome is there.

But we’re very much aware that we can’t just keep building infrastructure to move cars and trucks. I will also say that in Metro, transit use is 437 million boardings in 2018, up 7.1 percent from the year before. Again, that speaks to…. We have a population increase, of course, but more and more people are choosing to use public transit. We have a safe, effective means of moving people around in our metro area. It’s cost-effective. People like it. And more success will breed more success.

A. Weaver: Those are impressive numbers. Actually, 7 percent is far and above any population growth for Metro Vancouver, I would suggest. That’s actually quite good news. I thank the Premier for that.

I know that one of the other issues with respect to…. I believe the government campaigned on this. I know we did as well. It was exploring the ways to deal with the affordability issue and somehow to incentivize zoning or taxation policies to incentivize density around transit hubs. I’m wondering if government has any exploration into this area about tools that they might use at their disposal to incentivize the densification in urban areas around transit hubs, whether or not that’s being considered.

Hon. J. Horgan: We don’t believe that incentives are required, but we do know that coordination is. That’s why, when I formed the executive council, I put the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville in charge of Municipal Affairs, TransLink and Housing, so that we could put all three of those critical areas under one roof so that we could coordinate our transportation links with density, ensuring that municipal governments, local governments, were participating and understood our objectives, and we understood their objectives.

But when we designate a transit line, density will come to that. But the challenge then becomes: are neighbourhoods prepared for that? That’s where the municipal activity takes place.

We’re confident that these things will come together, but we are also looking at property taxes and how that’s affecting small businesses. That’s become very topical in the past number of months, and that’s part and parcel of zoning issues that become…. This is what is possible here. All of a sudden, the value of the land goes to the possible rather than the real. That has a negative impact on business and on people.

I will say, also, people are lining up and looking at me. City of Vancouver, 2017 — 52.8 percent of all trips were made by walking, cycling or transit. That’s up from 48 percent the year before. Again, a 4 percent increase in activity.

People are voting on these questions with their feet, literally — walking, cycling. Finding other ways to move around reduces their carbon impact, reduces their costs. I believe government’s role is to work as best as we can — and you agree with this — to put in place a framework that will work to get people where they want to be. It makes for a better society. It makes for better communities.

Yesterday in the legislature we debated Bill 28: Zero-emission vehicles act at second reading. This bill was introduced on April 10, 2019.  This bill sets into law the zero-emission vehicle mandate that was announced in the fall as part of the CleanBC economic agenda. It further outlines a credit/debit system, similar to what exists in California, that will allow new vehicle car dealers to meet the provincial compliance targets. In particular, the bill legislates that:

“(a) in 2025 and in each subsequent year, at least 10% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles;

(b) in 2030 and in each subsequent year, at least 30% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles;

(c) in 2040 and in each subsequent year, 100% of all new light-duty motor vehicles sold or leased in British Columbia must be zero-emission vehicles.”

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech

Video of Speech

Forthcoming

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. Obviously, I’ll be speaking in strong support of it.

Before I begin, please let me summarize the irony of what I heard during question period today. Question period — when we had a discussion, a discussion emanating from members of the opposition, questioning about the price of gas in British Columbia. We had suggestions from members opposite that one of the ways that we should deal with the price of gas is to bring in a price cap. That was a direct quote from the Leader of the Official Opposition.

You know, what we should have been talking about here is actually the opportunity that’s afforded us now, given the gouging that’s going on. We know that the price of gas in British Columbia, the 40 cent increase, is largely because of refinery margin, which in British Columbia is more than twice what it is in other jurisdictions in Canada. That’s what the real question is. And so, I could actually answer the question very simply that the members opposite asked in question period.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about the bill.

A. Weaver: We’ll keep to the bill, but it’s really important to recognize that the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act…. Why it’s relevant to this bill is that we’re talking about bringing in legislation to move towards 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Right now we’re also in question period, talking about gas prices. What is remarkable is the disconnect between these two.

What we know — and what should have been said and what I was wishing government would have said — is that we do have a role for the B.C. Utilities Commission. Perhaps the B.C. Utilities Commission might start to look at this refinery margin that exists in British Columbia. That is something government could do, and perhaps they will do it in the fall, but now is not the time to be discussing that in detail, because of course, we’re discussing the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

In this act…. It’s emerging from CleanBC, which is part of the government and, in collaboration with us, a commitment to reducing emissions, but it’s not really a commitment just to reduce emissions. It’s an economic agenda. This is a flagship proposal in a larger economic vision to position British Columbia as leaders in the new economy.

What happens in this bill, of course, is it builds upon the structure of the pathway towards getting zero-emission vehicles by bringing in place new requirements for car sales in the province of British Columbia. What’s important in doing the car sales is creation of an additional wrapping-around credit-debit system — ZEV units, so to speak — and a whole accounting system, mirrored after what’s being done in California, is being done to ensure compliance and enforcement and allow uptrading and penalties for companies that are having some difficulty meeting the ZEV standard. They can work with other companies that perhaps have less difficulty.

The bill talks about provincial targets being at least 10 percent of all new light-duty vehicles sold in British Columbia must be zero-emission by 2025. By 2030, that rises to 30 percent, and by 2040, that rises to 100 percent.

That’s the essence of the bill. The details, the important details and where the meat of the bill actually lies, is with respect to the ZEV units which are being created — ZEV, meaning zero-emission vehicle — to allow for the compliance of new car dealers in the province of British Columbia.

This is a very aggressive pathway to ZEV adoption. It’s one that we’re very supportive of. It’s one that is much stronger, in my view, than some of the other jurisdictions that have ZEV standards out there. It’s one that’s mirroring what’s happening elsewhere around the world, whether it be Netherlands or the U.K. or India or China, which are moving towards the rapid adoption of non-emitting vehicles and the elimination of gas as a fuel for such vehicles.

Therein lies the irony, which is why, again, coming back to the debate earlier today, it’s important to relate the two. Because here we see, around the world, car companies as well as consumers are moving away from emitting vehicles. They’re not there now, but they’re moving away towards it. Here we have, in British Columbia, an ironic debate, as we’re moving away, as we’re seeing oil companies gouge us with the refinery margin in B.C. that is more than twice the refinery margin of other jurisdictions in Canada.

There is a role for the BCUC to look into this, and perhaps we will look into this. But frankly, for us, in this place, to be debating the lowest-common-denominator politics — the lowest common denominator — talking about introducing price caps…. It’s the wrong conversation. The public…. Both sides of this House should be saying enough is enough to these oil companies.

Now, I recognize that they’ve just been given one of the greatest handouts of corporate welfare in Canadian history, through the LNG generational sellout that this government, supported by opposition, has moved forward. Now, I realize that they’re licking their lips at that corporate welfare, but enough is enough.

While this bill is important in taking us to the pathway towards zero-emitting vehicles, what’s equally important is that the public recognize that now is the time for us not to respond to this oil company gouging. Rather than playing on their terms, let us take this opportunity. Let us take this opportunity to British Columbia to join the rest of the world and show leadership by saying we are not going to play that game. We’re not going to play that game of price gouging.

Maybe we’re going to carpool less. Maybe we can’t afford a zero-emission vehicle. They’ll be coming down because of this bill in price, I can tell you that, because of the requirement to bring here, and there’ll be lots of capacity. The secondhand market is already flowing in British Columbia. Maybe they can’t go with that because they can’t afford it.

But what people can afford is, perhaps, carpooling. They can afford, perhaps, transit. They can afford, perhaps, riding a bike. In the market of supply and demand, if we reduce demand and there is the same supply, that’ll put less pressure on price.

Opposition’s response is to somehow have a massive market intervention by government — to somehow not deal with supply, not deal with demand, but put in a price cap, which is one of the greatest incentives you could give to an oil company to increase prices because the government is on the hook for any price increase. Outrageous. But that’s what we’ve come to expect.

In British Columbia right now, we are leaders in terms of zero-emission vehicle adoption, particularly in the metro Victoria region. One of the most common cars you will see on the road in Victoria is, in fact, the Nissan LEAF, a car that I own, a car that my friend from Saanich North and the Islands owns — he actually two of them, a new one and a secondhand one — and one that many, many people are owning.

In fact, I now own to EVs. We just bought a Hyundai Kona, the new Hyundai Kona which is a 415-kilometre-range non-emitting vehicle. It hasn’t arrived yet because there’s so much demand. We will have no more gas cars in my house.

Yes, we drive all over B.C., and we drive all over the place. We do so without range anxiety. The reason why is that no one should have range anxiety.

Let me say this to you, hon. Speaker. If you’re driving in the interior of B.C., where infrastructure charging is not as good but is growing, and you run out of gas, you’re in trouble. You’ve got to walk perhaps miles or get towed to a gas station.

If you’re driving a zero-emission vehicle and you see that you’re getting low on electricity, you don’t have to worry about a gas leak. That’s not going to happen in a zero-emission vehicle. Electrons don’t leak out of the battery per se.

But if you’re getting short and it’s desperate, just go to a farmhouse and say: “Hey, can I give you five bucks or ten bucks for a bit of electricity? I’m going to run out.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Or you can do jerry cans, sure. But you have to hope that the farmhouse has gas in the back. They might. They might, but they might have marked fuel, and that would be a problem if it was marked fuel. Marked fuel you can’t put in a car.

We also know that…. What I’m dealing with, to the member for Peace River South, is the issue of range anxiety. Range anxiety is really artificial. It’s being created by people who are afraid that they need to have a big thing to charge up. You actually don’t.

You can charge up at home on a 120 volt. It takes a little longer, but you often don’t need to charge up for12 hours. If you’re getting close, you plan your destination. It’s no different from planning where the gas stations are. You’re going to drive on a big highway, you notice “last gas station for 300 kilometres,” you check your gas gauge and say: “Nah, I better not go” or “I better fill up now.” It’s no different with an EV.

What has been happening in British Columbia and what is important to do and what I’m pleased to see is being done is that if you’re going to bring in a ZEV mandate — like we have here, an aggressive one — you must match it with a growing and increasing infrastructure. I’m very pleased to see that happening.

Particularly, I’ve experienced that on Vancouver Island with my Nissan LEAF’s 170-kilometre range. On the highway, you don’t quite get that. If you drive a little over 90 — on the highway on Vancouver Island, you can go 110 up by the Parksville area — it’s not as efficient.

However, we now have charging stations in Buckley Bay — fast chargers, multiple fast chargers, there. We have them in Courtenay, Comox. We have them in the Ucluelet and Tofino area. We have them up and down the Island.

So the infrastructure is coming in, and it’s being done in a very methodical pace that’s keeping up with demand. In cities like Victoria or Vancouver, there are so many charging stations that access to electricity is not a problem.

The problem that government is going to need to deal with in a shorter time frame than perhaps it’s thinking about is the fact that there are still far too many charging stations giving the electricity away for free. The reason why that might sound like a good idea is it’s an incentive. You get electric vehicles. That’s one thing. The problem with giving away electricity for free is that there are more and more EV adopters. As more and more EV adopters get into the market, many of them haven’t got the experience of recognizing the culture, the etiquette, the social norms that have been developed by longtime EV units.

That is, you don’t park in an EV parking space and use the electricity just because it’s a convenient parking space. You park in a parking space and use the electricity because you need it, because if you don’t have it, you won’t go anywhere.

This is a problem. We see it all across…. Whether you go to parkades in Victoria or in Nanaimo or anywhere on Vancouver Island or in Vancouver, you see EV charging stations full with people. I call them freeloaders. They’re there charging up electricity not because they need it but because it’s free.

This is a problem. We see it all across…. Whether you go to parkades in Victoria or in Nanaimo or anywhere on Vancouver Island or Vancouver, you see EV charging stations full with people. And I call them freeloaders. They’re there, charging up electricity, not because they need it but because it’s free. That’s a problem, because it then takes up a perfectly good EV charging station from somebody who needs it. This is very problematic with the high-voltage DC chargers.

So it’s imperative that government bring in, now that we’ve got new BCUC analysis of this issue, a more rapid transition to charging — of all EV stations on Vancouver Island and the rest of B.C. — in order to ensure that they’re used when they’re supposed to be used.

When you’re paying 35 cents a kilowatt hour, which is the price that you pay at, say, a Greenlot station — the original Greenlot stations, a few of them that were installed. One’s at Wal-Mart. There’s one in Duncan, for example. You pay 35 cents a kilowatt hour. It sounds like a lot, but it translates to a little over 2 bucks to go from Victoria to Nanaimo. That’s not that expensive.

People have no problem paying 35 cents per kilowatt hour, which is more than three times the retail rate of electricity in British Columbia, to actually charge their vehicles. Because it’s insignificant. And because of the fact that you have no moving parts. You have no oil and gas filter. You have no radiator. You have no exhaust system. You have no moving parts. You have no maintenance.

My 2015 Nissan LEAF, bought in 2014, has had maintenance precisely zero times. I was required, under warranty for the battery, to take it in and have the battery tested — it’s still at 100 percent, no loss at all, and it’s still looking good — because I had to for warranty. But there has not been a single thing, apart from windshield wiper fluid change — not a single piece of maintenance that has needed to be done. No oil filter, no changing transmission fluid, no worrying about radiator, no worrying about coolant. It’s just windshield wiper fluid.

This is the way of the future, and this legislation is positioning us there. I recognize, too, that the single most frequently purchased vehicle in British Columbia is the Ford F-150. I recognize that. That is something that…. In phase two, as we move forward, we’re also seeing an enormous opportunity there. As battery technology continues to improve, as demand continues to grow, it makes sense to initially target the urban markets, where we’re driving, in Victoria, a maximum of, you know, 50 kilometres a day. That’s a lot in Victoria. In Vancouver, even if you drive from Abbotsford to downtown and back, you don’t need anything other than an EV.

So Metro Vancouver and metro Victoria — both of these areas are set up, ideally, for the widespread rapid adoption of electric vehicles. So this legislation, which is essentially enabling legislation that ensures that, if you want to sell new cars in B.C., a certain percentage of those car sales must be zero-emitting vehicles — 100 percent of which must be that by 2040, 10 percent by 2025, 2030 will be 30 percent. Given that we’re about 4 percent now, anyway — very meetable targets.

In fact, the problem is not meeting the targets. The problem is trying to get a car when you go on the lot, because there’s none on the lot. The Hyundai Kona I just bought. I bought it…. Well, I shouldn’t say I bought it. My wife bought it. It’s her car. The one she just bought, she bought a month ago, but we’re not getting it till June, and that’s lucky. We’re lucky we’re getting in June — a three-month wait. Others, a much longer wait.

I know the member for Vancouver-Langara drives a Volt, another excellent EV. I’m sure he’s very pleased with that, although I haven’t seen it on the precinct as often as I used to see it. I know the Minister of Environment drives, I think, an Ioniq, a Hyundai. I think that’s what he drives. I know that my friend here drives LEAFs.

It used to be I was the only person driving an electric vehicle in this Legislature. Now I can’t get in on that EV charging, which is probably a good thing, because I can charge at home, and I know the member for Vancouver-Langara probably has more important need for the electricity than I do here. So I haven’t been using it. It’s been free quite often for you.

Coming back to the CleanBC initiative that led to this ZEV mandate, as well as the timeline for the actual requirement of new vehicles to be zero-emitting vehicles. It’s being coupled, also, not only with the infrastructure rollout, which is going well. I’m very pleased. It’s very well done. It’s really good to see it.

In the Buckley Bay station, for example, there are two high-voltage level 3 chargers, as well as the level 2 chargers, as well as the Tesla charger. So you’ve got lots of options there.

As it’s rolling out, the government is also, as part of CleanBC and the CEV for B.C. program, putting point-of-sale incentives that are up to $5,000 for new electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. And we’re seeing a lot of people, especially with the gas prices…. This is coming back again, coming back to what we had earlier, the discussion in question period. We know for a fact that the price of gas is the single biggest driver of adoption of plug-in, hybrid, zero-emission-vehicle cars. The single biggest driver. We’re seeing that.

You just have to talk to any car dealer. Go to the Hyundai dealer in Victoria. They’re flying off the lot, the Konas, as people come and say: “I’m done with these gas prices.” And you know what? Isn’t that a way to actually drive change, if there are more and more people in British Columbia who say: “I’m done with paying these prices. I’m going to switch over to a non-emitting vehicle”? That reduces demand on the existing supply, and that’s a downwards price driver.

We know the price is going to come down in the fall anyway. The reality of the price of gas right now is that it’s become outrageous. But it’s become outrageous because we know we can charge outrageous prices. We don’t have to blame the little guy, the retailer. It’s not them. We know again, coming back to the refinery margin, it’s twice as much in B.C. relative to the rest of the country. The question the BCUC could and perhaps should be asking is: why is that? Perhaps there is a role for the BCUC at some point to say: “You know what? That’s a problem.” But certainly the carbon tax is something that cannot be touched, and it’s something that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians don’t want to be touched. It’s one cent, but it’s one cent increasing by one cent every year, and that price signal is a critical driver of innovative change.

Just yesterday, I heard the mayor of Langford, Stew Young, on the radio, being interviewed, discussing an industrial park, several hundred acres that have already been zoned, looking to attract, based on this legislation and based on seeing the innovative change that happening, electric vehicle manufacturing in Langford. In particular, there’s a company that wants to build trucks in Langford. This is exactly what legislation like this incentivizes. It incentivizes others to want to be part of this direction, this new economy, and it creates opportunity in areas that we historically did not have.

Electra Meccanica in Vancouver, a small…. To declare everything, Jerry Kroll was a former candidate of ours in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — the CEO of Electra Meccanica, an electric vehicle car company. They’re going to be building elsewhere. They wanted to build in B.C., but government in B.C. must now recognize that as we bring in these innovative programs that are driving change, there is a role for government to work with local government — that is, the provincial government work with local government — to ensure that we capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation brings forward. That is actually what we need to do next — capitalize on the opportunities that this legislation incentivizes.

You know, British Columbia already has the highest per-capita adoption of zero-emitting vehicles in Canada. There are over 17,000 of them in B.C., on the roads, and about 4 percent, as I mentioned, in 2018 were that. The particular driver of an EV saves…. I mean, the notes I’ve been given here suggest $1,500 a year. I can tell you it’s an awful lot more than that. Say you’re charging a car once a week, and let’s suppose you’re driving a four-cylinder car and you’re paying, say, 60 bucks a week. That’s not an F-150. Say 50 bucks a week. That’s 3,000 bucks a year in gas right there, and you’re paying zero for it because there is no gas.

But not only that. You’ve got to do an oil and filter every six months. You’re looking at 200 bucks there. You’ve got to start doing tune-ups and all that stuff, transmission fluid checks, all that stuff, moving parts. None of that’s there. So, in fact, the argument about electric vehicles saving money and paying off rapidly is often not including the additional savings that come from no maintenance. And there’s a reason why we need such standards. Dealers historically have been very reluctant to sell EVs. Not all, but many. The reason why they’re reluctant to sell EVs…. I mean, you can look at the famous documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car? as an example — a very good documentary.

You don’t want to sell an EV because as you buy your EV…. You pay your money, you buy the EV, you drive off the lot, and you’re never seen again. You’re never seen again until you buy your next car. That’s a little tougher for the kind of standard business model that some new-car makers are operating under today. However, those manufacturers and those dealers that recognize the opportunity that’s afforded us here by this legislation, would be the ones that are going to thrive and move forward as we enter.

And I’m pretty sure that Campus Nissan in Victoria will be one of them. They can’t keep LEAFs on the lot. A lot of people think you have to buy a new EV too. Sure, you have to buy a new EV to get some of the incentives, and sure, this legislation only applies to the sale of new cars in British Columbia. However, the secondary market also gets improved by introducing legislation like this. The reason why is that many of the fleets — some of the rental fleets in California, for example — are starting to see these emerging into electric. Or there are lease vehicles. More and more people are leasing electric vehicles.

As these start to build, the secondary market of lease vehicles and rental vehicles, etc., starts to develop as those get sold on the secondary market. You can get a second-hand Nissan LEAF. The LEAF that I bought for about $10,000 to 15,000…. I admit it’s a lot, but if you think of investing, let’s say, $14,000 — because you can easily get a 2015 LEAF for $14,000 on the secondary market — you save $3,000 a year in gas right there. Boom. So you’ve completely paid that off in 4½ years. However, you’re actually going to have no maintenance as well. And most batteries….

People worry that the batteries decay with time. Again, my 2015 LEAF — been driving since 2014 — still has 100 percent battery. I’ve done 70,000 kilometres on that in five years on that — zero CO₂ emitted and still 100 percent battery — going all over British Columbia. You can do this. And it’s fun. And it’s zippy. And they’re fast. The technology in these cars is amazing. I’m very excited by this legislation moving forward.

That was articulated in the media release that my office put out, where we were quite thrilled when the government introduced the bill on April 10. We put out such a release. In fact, I’m quoted in the release as saying: “I’m thrilled that B.C. is adopting a rigorous zero-emission vehicle mandate.” Again, there were lots of discussions with the Environment Minister as we were developing CleanBC, and I would suggest that the level of bold adoption that you see here is something that we were quite persistent on.

The reason why is that 40 percent of emissions for the average household in British Columbia comes from transportation. The average person has a difficult time reducing emissions without dealing with transportation. This gives them a means and a way to go to zero in transportation, relatively rapidly. We also know that without an aggressive ZEV standard, we won’t get the cars on the lots in B.C. because they’ll appear on the lots in California or Quebec instead, where ZEV standards exist.

With China, India and other jurisdictions moving this direction, essentially we know, I suspect, that these targets will end up being moot. If we’re at 4 percent already, getting to 10 percent in 2025, you put the cars on the lot, and we’re going to be there. No question. I would suggest that we’re probably well above 4 percent now with new-car sales. I don’t have the data, but knowing the price of gas at a buck-70 in Vancouver, why would you buy a new car that is not electric? Why would you not consider it? But they need to be on the lots to allow you to buy it, in the first place.

We know that within a decade, trucks, other cars, vans, will all be zero-emitting. That is the direction we’re heading in. I look forward to exploring the details of this further in the actual committee stage because there are complexities in the unit accounting for compliance. There will be questions that will need to be addressed there.

I congratulate government on this — in particular, CleanBC and the Minister of Environment, whose work in this area has been quite well received. And I look forward to the rollout implementation in the weeks, months and years ahead.