(1) 250.472.8528
andrew.weaver.mla@leg.bc.ca

Health

Bill 9: The Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 9: The Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill updates the Workers Compensation Act for eligible occupations (correction officer, an emergency medical assistant, a firefighter, a police officer, a sheriff or other as prescribed by regulation) who are exposed to one or more traumatic events over the course of their employment and are subsequently diagnosed with a mental disorder. The disorder will be presumed to have been caused by the nature of their work rather than having to prove that it was work-related. British Columbia is one of the last such jurisdictions in Canada to have such legislation.

In speaking to this bill, I articulate why I’m convinced that it doesn’t go far enough. I provide examples as to why I believe teachers, social workers, nurses, office workers, construction workers and others need to be included in the presumptive language. I will be introducing an amendment at committee stage tomorrow to extend this presumptive clause to all workers. Doing so would bring us up to the standards already in place in Alberta and in Saskatchewan.

I conclude by reading into the record (with permission) a tragic, yet illustrative, story sent to me by a 911 call receiver. I cannot understand, nor accept, the fact that when NDP MLA Shane Simpson (Vancouver Hastings) was in opposition he included 9-1-1 communications officers in his Private Members Bill (both in 2016 and on February 16, 2017,  just prior to last year’s election) yet now, when the BC NDP have the chance to update the legislation, they have not included them. I can only assume it was an inadvertent oversight and I will be asking the Minister about this tomorrow.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech.


Text of Speech


A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for bringing this bill forward, Bill 9, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2018 — a bill which I clearly strong in strong support of, with my colleagues in this House.

As was mentioned by my colleague from Chilliwack, this bill updates the Workers Compensation Act so that those working in eligible occupations — we’ll come to that in a minute — who are exposed to one or more traumatic events over the course of their employment and are subsequently diagnosed with a mental disorder…. We’ll come to that as well in a second. They will be presumed to have been caused by the nature of their work rather than having to prove that it was work-related.

Now, this particular bill is targeting the eligible occupations — namely a correction officer, an emergency medical assistant, a firefighter, a police officer, a sheriff or other as prescribed by regulation. Now, that’s important, that other as “prescribed by regulation,” and we’ll come to that as well.

The term, as I also mentioned in that introduction, “mental disorder” is actually a term that is defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Right now that’s in its 5th edition. It’s termed DSM-V. That fifth edition was published in 2013 and is presently in the process of being updated.

I’ll start here, because it’s a very important interjection that I’d like to do right off the bat to highlight one particular difference between the present legislation and that legislation which was brought in by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the now the minister…. I’m having slight trouble with the title of the ministry. I do apologize. He brought in, in 2016, Bill M203, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2016. It was a private member’s bill.

I sat in the legislature as the member then read it in. We passed first reading, of course. It wasn’t brought for discussion. Why that’s important is…. I’ve mentioned the eligible occupations already. If we refer to this previous bill and we look at the eligible occupations in that case, we see a number of differences. We see here, when we look at first responder it means the following: an individual who is a emergency medical assistant, licensed by the emergency medical assistants licensing board, a full-time firefighter or part-time volunteer firefighter, an individual appointed as a peace officer, police officer, sheriff or corrections officer. All of those are covered.

But most importantly, section 5.2(e) of the private member’s bill brought in by member for Vancouver-Hastings says this: “(e) a 9-1-1 communications officer employed by any of the above organizations or by Emergency Communications for British Columbia Inc.” That’s important, because that one distinction is a difference between the private member’s bill that clearly his party was supporting back in 2016. It does not appear here in Bill 9. It’s specifically excluded.

I suspect that the minister, through the Lieutenant-Governor, orders-in-council, will prescribe this profession, coming into the future. But I will be, as we move forward, proposing a number of amendments to this bill, and one of those will be specifically to deal with 911 dispatchers for reasons and rationale that I’ll describe shortly.

Only Quebec, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia and the federal government, Canada, do not already have some form of presumptive language or legislation for mental health concerns.

In particular, at the federal level, recognizing some of the concern with respect to our military coming home — the preponderance of PTSD and the unacceptable and sad rise in suicide amongst our military personnel, people who put their lives on the line for all of us — the federal government last year — done, actually, by a British Columbian…. The MP for Cariboo–Prince George, Todd Doherty, introduced a private member’s bill called Bill C-211, an act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder. He was looking to create this federal framework to address PTSD in general.

Right now — it’s actually good news; I’m hoping it follows through — it’s passed through the House of Commons. It was passed through third reading on June 16, 2017. It’s presently sitting before the Senate at second reading and is being debated this year, in fact. If we come to some of the language from the government’s backgrounder in the press release….

I think it’s important to read this into the record, because it highlights some of the background for why I will be bringing forth some amendments for discussion at committee stage. The backgrounder for the Workers Compensation Amendment Act states as following. It states: “Currently the Workers Compensation Act provides any worker with workers’ compensation” — the term “worker” is actually defined under the act, and I encourage people to see how it’s defined — “for a mental disorder” — again, that’s described in terms of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistics Manual — “caused by their work, including PTSD.”

There are two recognized situation for work-related mental disorders. This is critical. “There are two recognized situations of work-related mental disorders: (1) a reaction to one or more traumatic events at work, or (2) one primarily caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying and harassment.” In both of these situations, I’ll cite some examples of why I think that we need to be a little more inclusive in this legislation.

It’s quite clear to me that this legislation is targeting professions that you might get a lot of 1 — that is, a reaction to one or more singular or multiple traumatic events — but less so to No. 2, even though it still would apply to No. 2, which is primarily caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying and harassment. It would apply to those same professions.

It continues in the backgrounder and says: “In order for the claim to be accepted, medical and/or scientific evidence must be provided to establish that the condition arose out of their employment, in addition to a diagnosis by a psychiatrist or psychologist.”

That’s in the current one. That puts the onus of proof on the sufferer of the mental disorder. That, in and of itself, can be profoundly troubling and creates great mental anguish for the person who’s actually been exposed to the issue causing them a mental disorder.

In some cases, they might choose not to pursue it, because of having to relive the experience. In other cases, they might try to pursue it, to their frustration, and adding to the compounding of their mental disorder because of the fact they feel the system is not listening to them. Indeed, I have examples of that too.

A presumptive clause…. “A presumption under the act,” as here, “provides that, if a worker has been employed in certain occupations” — again, coming back, those are a correction officer, emergency medical assistant, firefighter, police officer, sheriff or others as prescribed by regulation — “and develops a disease or disorder that is recognized as being associated with that occupation, then the condition is presumed to have been due to the nature of their work unless the contrary is proved.”

So it switches the onus of burden. You still have to go through the process of meeting with doctors, qualified psychologists and psychiatrists, and having this condition professionally assessed and determined to be a result of a certain cause or causes or systemic problems in the work environment. Now, though ,with a presumptive condition, there is no longer a need to prove that a claimant’s disease or disorder is work-related.

“The proposed legislative amendments,” it further says, “will establish a new mental disorder presumption when the condition is a reaction to traumatic events at work.”

A secondary thing. I’ll very briefly touch upon another…. It’s a very welcome addition, and frankly, I think it’s an oversight to previous additions to this act. It’s not going to be the dominant discussion within this House, but it’s profoundly important, particularly for some of my friends who actually work on the Esquimalt DND firefighters. The amendments in this act will expand existing cancer presumptions to federal firefighters.

In our area, it’s very specific to DND. The DND firefighter comes in to help out, in Esquimalt, Victoria and elsewhere, when there are large calls, They are very active and, in fact, exposed to the same chemicals, particularly if they’re working side by side with Victoria or Esquimalt or View Royal or Colwood firefighters.

This new legislation is going to bring existing cancer presumptions to these federal firefighters employed on military. Federal firefighters currently who qualify for the heart disease and injury presumptions…. While they do already qualify for that that, they’re not qualified for the cancer presumption. So this is a good addition, because at present, it’s limited to local government firefighters under the provision.

This act, again, is a direct response, in my view, as was the previous private member’s bill, to a Union of B.C. Municipalities call for an amendment to the Workers Compensation Act to include a presumptive clause for first responders.

In 2015, the UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which represents the local governments across British Columbia, specifically passed a resolution. I thank the good municipality of Central Saanich, embedded within the provincial riding of Saanich North and the Islands, where my friend who’s not here right now is from — my friend to my right here.

This is the motion that they put that was passed at UBCM. It says this. “Whereas first responders will include 911 operators….” Again, the motion specifically refers to 911 operators. They’re talking there about call receivers as well as call dispatchers. It says here, “Paramedics, firefighters, peace officers, police officers, sheriffs, correction officers and many first responders have been affected by mental health injury/disorder” — thus replacing “PTSD” with “mental health injury.” It says: “Whereas there is a need to change the Workers Compensation Act, under section 5.1, to add a presumptive clause as it is possible that within first responders’ duties, they will encounter horrific acts and develop a mental health injury.

“Therefore, be it resolved that a two-month maximum deadline be implemented when making a decision, at any decision point of the claim regarding a mental health injury claim, based on one psychologist’s and/or one psychiatrist’s report, and be it further resolved that upon receipt of a mental health injury claim, the worker should receive immediate financial benefits and treatment, with the understanding and agreement of the worker, their specialist and WorkSafe B.C., that if it is proven that the injury was not as a result of their duties of employment, there will be a repayment plan for the costs.

“Be it further resolved that when the worker is fit to return to work or retraining,” there will be a follow-up plan, to be agreed upon by WorkSafe B.C., the specialist and the worker.

“And be it resolved that under policy 97.34…” — Those of you who’ve been to UBCMs will realize that there are many, many policies. I challenge people to find this. They will, but there are a lot of them to go through. — “…a conflict of medical opinion, the probable difference of opinion shall be discussed with the physicians or referred to the treating physicians or specialists involved. If it is concluded that there is doubt on any issue, the board must follow the mandate of section 99 of the Workers Compensation Act and resolve that issue in a manner that favours the worker.

“And be it resolved that the province of British Columbia adds new legislative action to section 5.1 of the Workers Compensation Act, adding a presumptive clause for mental health injuries as set forth in the resolution to ensure the well-being of all first responders who have sustained a mental health injury.” Coming back again to that specific motion passed at UBCM in 2015, the first one that was included, for 911 operators.

Continuing back to the motion, it says: “A motion duly moved and seconded to amend the resolution by replacing the five enactment clauses with one enactment clause, reading: ‘Therefore, be it resolved that the provincial government work with WorkSafe B.C., first responders and other stakeholders to review and amend the Workers Compensation Act with the goal of supporting the well-being of first responders who have sustained a mental health injury….'”

That’s just getting complicated. It says it was not endorsed there. But that was a bunch of sub-motions within it. Nevertheless, we have that coming out of UBCM. It’s good to see that the government has responded to that.

But what’s more important as well here, of course, is that we have to ask the question: why is it that B.C. took so long to actually deal with this issue? We are really, other than Quebec, one of the large, major provinces to move forward with it.

We have two shining examples in Canada, those being the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan — we’ll come back to that in a second — who actually recognized, coming earlier to the government’s backgrounder, that there are two situations of work-related mental disorders: a reaction to one or more traumatic events at work and one primarily caused by significant work-related stressors such as bullying and harassment.

Recognizing that, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan now cover all psychological injuries defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, and they do so for all professions. Why is that important? Most other provinces — Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Prince Edward Island, for example — largely cover PTSD, although in Ontario, there’s some new legislation coming forward adding nurses as well. But why is it that we have more progressive provinces actually going further?

Let’s go directly to the Workers Compensation Board fact sheets from both Alberta and Saskatchewan. Alberta has two such fact sheets that are relevant here — the traumatic psychological injury fact sheet and the post-traumatic stress disorder fact sheet. That’s the PTSD fact sheet. Let’s focus on what it says is the difference.

Effective December 2012, Alberta actually covered firefighters with PTSD presumptive clauses as well as emergency medical technicians and police officers appointed under provincial regulation. Also, effective April 1, they’ve added correctional officers and emergency dispatchers too.

If we look at the traumatic, psychological injury within Alberta, we see that that extends…. Effective 2018, it says “All workers covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act who have been: a) exposed to a traumatic event during the course of employment that could lead to PTSD, and b) diagnosed with a psychological injury by a physician or psychologist are eligible for presumptive coverage through WCB-Alberta, unless the contrary is proven.”

This in Alberta applies to every worker in Alberta — whether you be a teacher, a nurse, an emergency dispatcher, or whether you happen to be a social worker. Let’s imagine some cases. We see this legislation here as a direct response to very effective lobbying by police, by firefighters, and we thank them for their lobbying. But as legislators, we must not stop there and say that those who have lobbied are the only ones who have the issue.

I would argue that they are very efficient and effective lobbyers, and they are lobbying not only on behalf of their profession but for the broader society as a whole. I have a cousin who is a firefighter. I understand what it’s like to…. I don’t understand to be there, but I want to understand what it’s like to witness someone come home after they’ve scraped someone off the road following a significant car injury.

Over the years I have done some expert witnessing myself in forensic meteorology, and I’ve seen horrific pictures. But I’ve only seen them as pictures. I cannot imagine what people — firefighters, paramedics or first responders — would actually see when they go there, and having to scrape this off. Or in Oak Bay, those police who had to show up at the home of the two young children who were murdered by their father — can you imagine what they went through? I understand this.

But let’s also think about that social worker, that social worker who has to go into a home, and goes into a home and sees systemic child abuse happening in a home. Suppose that social worker who’s seeing systemic child abuse tries to get their superior to take steps to deal with it, and they’re not. That can be a problem. That can lead to profound problems down the road.

What about teachers? What about a teacher who is standing up and teaching the class for years, and then all of a sudden, they have a child in the class that’s clearly coming from a troubled home. The teacher has a duty to report a corresponding report, and teachers are professionals. They will and do all the time. But there are times, and I’m dealing with some in my own constituency, when nobody listens. The administration is not supportive. The system starts to protect itself. Yet the teacher is the one who has to deal with this on the front line. This can lead to down-the-road and ongoing systemic issues with respect to depression and anxiety.

Again, I come to a case that’s going on in my constituency right now, a very serious case that falls right in that definition. Where is WCB for them? Where is WCB for the person who now has to prove that their illness comes from the work environment?

When the system is trying to protect itself, that can be very hard, because your superiors are not going to be writers of letters saying “yes, we understand this person.” This is why it’s critical to include the….

What about nurses, who are front-line responders in many cases? Why are they not included in this? They would be in Alberta — I’ll come to Saskatchewan in a second. They would be in Alberta.

What about heavy truck drivers working on-site, where a major accident, a construction accident, occurs? It can have devastating effects on the workers on that construction site. It could have devastating psychological effects, which can be, through proper medical intervention, assessed and attributed to that accident. But they’re not covered under workmen’s compensation. Yet in Alberta, they would be.

What about somebody working in an office in downtown Kelowna, in an abusive work environment? But that person happens to be a single mother or a single father, and they’re earning just enough to make ends meet, because at home, they have an autistic child, and they have no family in town. They’ve got this one job, and they can’t quit this job, because if they quit this job, they’ll be on welfare.

Yet they’re in a systemically abusive environment that leads to depression and anxiety disorders or other such mental illness. They go to their psychiatrist, they go to their psychologist, and it’s very clear that it comes from the recommendations there. But again, they have to prove this. And as somebody going forward to workmen’s compensation has to prove it, they have to relive everything. They have to relive all of those experiences as they try to prove that their illness is a direct consequence of their work.

Progressive jurisdictions like Alberta — and let’s go to Saskatchewan — recognize this. They recognize that it doesn’t stop the due medical process from still occurring. It doesn’t stop workmen’s compensation from challenging an assessment, but it does provide a presumptive clause that would ensure that workers actually don’t have to relive every incident in order to prove it before workmen’s compensation.

Let’s go to Saskatchewan, another progressive jurisdiction. Now, Saskatchewan has a two-page fact sheet. If you go to page 2 on this fact sheet entitled Psychological Injuries, it says this: “Does the psychological injury presumptive clause guarantee that my WCB claim will be accepted?” It says this: “The WCB” — that’s Workmen’s Compensation Board — “will gather information to determine if you’ve been exposed to a traumatic event or series of traumatic events that occurred during work and if it is acceptable under the presumption.”

So they’re still able to gather evidence. They’re still able to make an assessment and a potential challenge if they don’t believe this was a result, but the presumptive language is there. The presumptive language is in the legislation that would protect the worker from actually having to relive that experience.

This doesn’t cost a lot at all.  I suspect that government will step forward and suggest that in the case of some of them…. WorkSafe B.C. undertook these projections, and they suggested that the total cost for the presumption of the group of workers considered here would be $6.3 million a year across all of B.C.

It’s not clear if that’s going to have any effect on actual premiums, because WorkSafe B.C. doesn’t actually spend all the money they’re bringing in at this stage. So that could just be zero cost. And of course, any increases in WCB would actually go down to the local government and the municipal level, and the impacts depend on the size or the payroll.

For example, Terrace. Terrace is a small municipality, and it’s estimated that the presumptive clause, for all included classes, would have cost about $4,000 a year. That’s $4,000 for the entire city of Terrace. I think it’s worth it. Kelowna is a medium-sized city. In Kelowna, it’s $32,000 a year to cover all of these in presumptive clauses — $32,000 a year alone. It’s not a lot. In Surrey, it would be $86,000 a year — a large metropolis city there. So we’re not talking about a lot of money in these.

However, it’s critical to also think about not only the upfront costs but also the costs avoided — again, not only with the specific case of the people who are eligible workers but also with broader society. If you can avoid long-term costs of health care, long-term costs associated with frustration compounding mental disorders because of a lack of ability, feeling out of control from an inability to actually advocate for yourself when no one’s listening to the job environment, you could save money in the long term.

Not only that, but with a presumptive clause it gives WCB a little bit of power — a little bit of power that’s absolutely critical, particularly in larger institutions. Why that is critical is that if we come back earlier, to the two classes that are covered now in the present Workers Compensation Act, the two classes of coverage…. The two classes — I want to get them exactly right for Hansard so that I’m not misquoting. Here we go. The two classes — two, three…. I seem to be filibustering my own time here. I don’t mean to do that. Here it is.

The first one is, of course, a reaction to one or more traumatic events at work. That’s the first class. The second is one primarily caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying or harassment.

I’m the designated speaker, Hon. Speaker.

Coming back to No. 2, No. 2 is critical — one primarily caused by significant work-related stressors, such as bullying or harassment. Now, why is that important? We all know about people who work in larger institutions. Whether they be government, hospitals or hospital boards, universities, school districts or colleges, or whether they be large places of work — we all know, and have many a story to tell, about workplace bullying and harassment that goes on. In these institutions, very often, people feel that nobody is listening. The reason why they feel that nobody is listening is because you have to prove that a mental health issue would be a direct consequence of your work.

With the presumptive clause, the onus then comes on the employer: rather than to cover something up, to actually deal with the systemic problem. Otherwise, their Workers Compensation Board fees are going to go up. There’s an incentive to actually deal with workplace bullying, if you actually include a presumptive clause for all types of workers covered under the act.

I find it odd that I am the leader of the B.C. Green Party and that I’m arguing better labour policy to the NDP. This is a very odd situation. I can only hope that they see the light and recognize what Alberta and Saskatchewan did — that this is about incentivizing safe work environments. Two years ago now I stood in this House and introduced a bill that would require university campuses to add sexualized violence policies, to insist that they have them. The culture on campuses, from small to big, was one of: “It’s not our problem.” It’s one of not dealing with the problem.

These universities and colleges and smaller institutions want to be perceived as safe places for students. So if there’s an issue of sexualized violence, it’s kept under the table. It’s quiet, and policies aren’t really implemented. The Premier at the time stood up and agreed that this was an important issue, and we saw that legislation pass. It’s led to good policy being put in at many, but not all, institutions. All institutions have it, but not all have that as good policy, as we’ll hear about in the weeks and months coming, ahead.

Nevertheless, it required institutions to recognize that a problem exists. The ultimate penalty that they would have would be the stick of advanced education funding, which could ensure that they actually dealt with it.

In the case of workmen’s compensation, they too have a stick. If you are in an unhealthy work environment, one that’s conducive to bullying and harassment…. We all know examples of this going on. If your management does not step in to deal with it and workers start to go on leave and, following the presumptive clause, that reason for leave is actually pinned on the work environment — without having to relive it and prove it — then there’s an incentive to actually stop, to intervene, because your premiums will go up. You can bet that when it starts to affect your bottom line, it will make a difference.

I will not accept arguments from government that somehow this is going to cost, oh, so much to everyone. In fact, it should not cost anything. If institutions step up to deal with the problem, they should actually not cause it to rise. It’s there to protect workers. It’s there to save the health care system. And it’s there to ensure that institutions step in to deal with systemic bullying and harassment that too often is ignored in larger institutions across our province.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan…. Again, one government, an NDP government, and another government — well, Saskatchewan Party — is, let’s call it, the Conservative government. Across the spectrum. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a recognition of good public policy that employers need to be responsible and not everybody has the ability to quit a job and go somewhere else.

I want to come back…. I’ve talked about nurses. I’ve talked about teachers. I’ve talked about construction workers. I’ve talked about 911 dispatchers. And I’ve talked about office workers, but there are many other professions. I want to focus right now, a little bit, on 911 operators. I’m going to focus that on a story, because I think a story says it all.

I cannot accept that government has any rationale not to have 911 operators named in this act. I cannot accept that. We know, according to the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, that public-safety personnel — including paramedics, police, firefighters, dispatchers and correction officers — are four times more likely than the general population to screen positive for clinically significant symptoms consistent with one or more of the mental disorders that we’ve been talking about.

If we need the research on that for 911 dispatchers, I have some right here. It’s not a prop. It’s just white paper. I have in my hands a document that I won’t read in its entirety into the record, but it’s a thesis that was from the University of the Fraser Valley. A fine institution from down in the valley.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Chilliwack-Kent. He recognizes it is a very fine institution.

It’s a master of arts in criminal justice. Actually, hon. Speaker, I suspect our Speaker might be aware of this particular article, because it was from his former department, there, at the University of the Fraser Valley.

Its title is “Prevalence of PTSD Symptoms in Canadian 911 Operators.” We have an entire study here — and it’s B.C. focused — that points out the obvious issues with respect to mental illness, particularly PTSD and others, that are associated with emergency dispatchers and call receivers.

Let me finish with a story that I’d like to read into the record. This is a story that I’ll read, and I’ve been given permission by the person who got it to read it. She or he has given me that permission. What I’ve done here is — I don’t want to give out any names — I’ve removed identifying markers in this. It’s a story that I can vouch to be true, from a very real person in a very real part of British Columbia that had very profound consequences. This person, now, has told me about how she or he has consulted at least six dispatchers from not committing suicide.

The stories I heard — not only from nurses, not only from teachers, but from emergency dispatchers. One of these stories was a caller, a caller who received a 911 call from a passenger who was in a car in motor vehicle accident, reporting that. That passenger sees a head rolling by, a dismembered head. Can you imagine that? The caller is on the phone, dealing with this passenger, as this passenger is in hysterics. That had a profound effect, because that person is the first responder.

I hope government listens to this story and reflects upon it, prior to us debating this in committee stage. The story goes like this:

“Mr. X was his name. He lived on the second floor of a four-storey apartment building, about a block or so away from ‘YYY.’ I don’t remember the street name anymore, although I do remember that it has exterior stairs that go up to each floor, because ERT used them” — that’s emergency response team — “and I remember hearing them stomp up them, clanging on the metal stairs outside his open window.

“I received a 911 call, where all I heard was a muffled sound of pain and then a hangup. When I called back, a male with a thick accent answered, and he didn’t want to talk to me, but clearly he was crying and/or in pain. I worked hard to establish a conversation with him to find out what was going on.

“Eventually, he trusted me and told me that he had already committed hara-kiri by stabbing himself in the stomach with a large knife and was currently sitting on his bed, with his entrails hanging out. He tried to kill himself and now was really scared and didn’t want to die alone — not that he didn’t want to die. He just didn’t want to die alone.”

“I created the priority-one call and advised the chief dispatcher, who then continued to listen, for a bit, off and on through the call.

“His apartment door was locked, and so this became a barricaded man with a weapon call, and ERT was called out. He refused to talk to the officer at the window, but when talking to me, he would go back and forth between wanting to live and wanting to die. I convinced him that I cared and that if he wanted to live, then he needed to come outside so the officers and the waiting ambulance could get him to hospital for help.

“He believed me and was going to come out. Then he heard the ERT officer ask for a member at the parking lot to bring him the spud gun. This set Mr. X off on a tangent of terror. He didn’t want to be shot. He wanted to live, but he refused to talk to the ERT member at the window.

“At this time, he was still bleeding, and the knife was still in his stomach. He kept telling me he was going to just pull out the knife and let himself bleed to death if the cop at the window wouldn’t leave.

“On my end, I had my team manager telling me to hang up — the chief dispatcher telling me to hang up. Common sense told me to hang up, but I couldn’t. I couldn’t be the person who caused this man’s death.

“I told Mr. X that he needed to talk to the cop at the window, that they were there to help him. He went really quiet and then wouldn’t answer me when I asked him if he was still there. So I clicked on my mute button so he would believe that I had hung up — and then just listened.

“All this time, I was typing as well, letting the officers know what was happening and the dispatcher was doing the same with their stuff. I saw, in the call, the request for the spud gun and that there wasn’t one on scene, but it was on the way. They were waiting and still trying to establish contact with Mr. X, trying to strike up a rapport with him. He kept crying and denying them, accusing them of trying to kill him and asking them to let him talk to me.”

Remember, at this juncture, she’s on the phone with the mute button, unable to speak.

“He blamed them for making me hang up and told them that he was going to die because of it. Car number, number” — I won’t say what number it was — “was there as well, and he asked the chief dispatcher where the call-taker was. He was advised that I was still on the line but was being silent on mute. They were also still waiting for a negotiator to arrive. He was at least another 30 minutes away at this point.”

Hon. Speaker, you’ve got the picture now. A man — knife in his stomach, entrails hanging out. Because he has a knife, we have an ERT team. We now have to wait 30 minutes for the ERT team to come because he’s an armed person in there.

And who’s on the phone? This one emergency dispatcher.

I continue with the story:

“I knew that Mr. X wasn’t going to live that long. If he was bleeding badly from his belly, then we didn’t have much time. I don’t know who it was, but I heard through my headset an officer yell at the dispatcher to tell me to hang the f… up.”

I’ll let Hansard fill that in if they choose to. I don’t think it’s parliamentary to do so, but I’m reading directly here from this thing:

“I do know, though, that it wasn’t car X because it wasn’t his voice. I know his voice. I felt the horror, the terror of impending death, the helplessness of having my hands tied, incapable of doing anything for this man, and I could not hang up. I was frozen. I was convinced that if I hung up, he was going to die. I also believed at that point that if I said anything more, I would be in big trouble. So I sat there for about ten minutes, listening, vibrating physically, and tears running down my face. I saw in the call that the spud gun had arrived, and I could hear the dispatcher’s comments that an ERT member was trying to get a clear shot from the window. They were going to shoot him.

“Now, common sense tells me that this won’t kill the average man” — it’s a spud gun, hon. Speaker — “but this man already had his guts hanging out of his belly, had already lost a lot of blood and was already traumatized by all this.” I’m quoting again: “F…!”

No need to fill it in. It’s in the text here. This is a direct quote that was given to a psychiatrist in terms of what happened.

“I looked over at the dispatcher, who was looking at me. She very slowly nodded her head at me in my tears. She knew that I could change this around if I was allowed to try. I think she was telling me to go ahead and do it anyways. At this point, I had created the call almost 40 minutes ago.”

That’s 40 minutes this woman, this call receiver, sat through this traumatic event. And there wasn’t much time left to get any help at all.

“I made the decision and typed into the call that I had established a trust with the man and that I was going to re-establish contact with him now. At this point, Mr. X was yelling at the cops to all go away and leave him alone to die, that he was going to die and it was their fault. I started saying his name over and over until he stopped yelling and he heard me. I started talking with him again, got him to listen to what I was saying and trust me again. I talked him into coming outside with his hands up and letting the officers get him the help he needed, and he did. I typed this into the call, and the chief dispatcher came back on the line. She coordinated it with the ERT while I talked to Mr. X. He was scared, but he did it. He unlocked the door. Then we counted to three, and he opened it and stepped outside.

“I heard the officers take him down and him screaming all the way through it. They got him into the ambulance and off to hospital. I then hung up and just about collapsed. I had to leave the room. But on my way out, I heard the chief dispatcher talking on the phone with someone that I could assume was car X. She was defending me, telling that person, ‘Well, she did, so it doesn’t matter….  Well, she did….’ as I walked past her out of the room.

“When I came back into the room about 20 minutes later, car X was there talking to my team manager. He was visibly angry and told me in a very stern voice: ‘I don’t ever want to hear of you doing that again. ‘ But then he stuck his hand out to shake mine and said: ‘Good job. You should take negotiator training.’ What? I was left with the feeling of not knowing whether I was in trouble or being congratulated, whether I was coming or going.

“I never found out whether or not Mr. X lived. I tried to find out a few months later. The officers didn’t know, and victim services was unable to confirm he survived — equals, he did not.

“I feel the guilt and responsibility for this young man’s death. It is a moral injury that I will likely never recover from. The kicker here: my employer and X inspectors wrote me an ‘attaboy’ for a job well done. They congratulated me for successfully causing a human being’s death. I didn’t sign up for that. I’m not a police officer. I was never prepared for this possibility.”

Now, that is just one of many, many such stories that I have received over the last few weeks. I’ve got stories like this from nurses, and I’ve got stories like this from teachers, and I’ve got stories like this from a diverse array of professions.

But one thing I cannot accept is that when in opposition, this government delivered a private member’s bill that included specifically 911 dispatchers and callers and now, when in government, they leave out 911 dispatchers and call receivers.

They are first responders. In many cases, they are the first responder and the last person to hear someone alive, the last person to be the first responder while someone’s alive. They listen to cases like this. There are many, many other examples.

I understand that some emergency dispatchers are paramedics and so would be covered and that some are police officers and so would be covered, but not all. Many are just civilians and need to be covered under this legislation.

So over the course of the estimates, I have a series of amendments to bring forward — one of which I hope is passed, which I’m putting in; it’s on the order paper — to extend this legislation across other jurisdictions, all other workers, as defined in the act, just like they’ve done in Alberta, just like they’ve done in Saskatchewan, to actually protect workers from abusive work environments as well as to provide presumptive clauses not only for systemic harassment and bullying but also for traumatic events.

That’s the first, and I hope government sees the wisdom in that. As people look at the order paper amendment that I’ll bring in at committee stage, you’ll note that I recognize that government may have done some back work. So royal assent with the amendment would remain the same now, as proposed here, but would be extended a year so that we would give government a time to have royal assent for all other workers not already defined in the amendment here.

That’s the first one. I have some subsequent ones, hoping it will not be necessary to raise, under the assumption that government recognizes that we can do better. We can do better, and at least, we’ve got to do as well as Alberta and Saskatchewan. We’re a western province.

We value our workplace. For the first time in a very long time, we have a progressive, democratic government here, a government that actually brought in private members’ bills to do this and, in my view, are timidly responding in a populist fashion only to those who have directly lobbied without thinking about the broader consequences and the broader opportunity that is sitting before us now.

I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to debating it further at committee stage.


Video of Speech


Why bother with the MSP task force if you aren’t willing to listen to them?

Yesterday I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Finance why she would forge ahead and announce the Employers’ Health Tax prior to her very own MSP task force submitting their final report.

Recall that on November 2, 2017, the BC Government announced the establishment of an MSP Task Force. The mandate of the Task Force is to provide government with advice on how to replace lost revenue when MSP premiums are eliminated.  The Task Force will be issuing its final report on March 31, 2018.

I remain perplexed as to why the Minister of Finance rushed into the Employers’ Health Tax. In doing so, she has created a suite of unforeseen budgetary problems for schools, hospitals, municipalities and other large employers. In addition, she has ignored what the interim report from the MSP Task Force stated:

A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several competitiveness challenges.

and

We feel that it is important that revenue be replaced by a combination of measures in order to best mitigate the negative impacts of each.

The only conclusion one can reach is that the Minister of Finance either (a) read the MSP Task Force interim report but chose to ignore its key recommendations, or (b) rendered her decision to implement the employers health tax prior to the interim report actually being available.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my Question Period exchange with the Minister of Finance.


Video of Exchange



Question


A. Weaver: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance why her government forged ahead with the employers health tax without waiting just a few more weeks for the final report to come in from her MSP Task Force. In response, the minister assured us that she took the task force interim report into account when making her decision.

Okay, let’s take a look and see what the task force actually said in this interim report. They said this, “We are leaning towards a combination of a personal income tax surcharge, a small payroll tax and additional ideas” as the best way to replace the revenue. Instead, this government went in the exact opposite direction, putting the entire burden on employers through this payroll tax.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this: given that the expert task force recommended against exactly what you’ve chosen to do with the employers health tax, how do you justify this decision?


Answer


Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for his question. We did receive the interim report. We felt it was important to move ahead on the elimination of medical service premiums on behalf of British Columbians. Leaving the regressive tax in place did not make sense, and we were able to manage it in this budget.

We had increased personal income tax for the top 2 percent of income earners in September’s budget. I’m not sure what the member is asking — whether he’s committed to increasing personal income taxes. But we felt that because we’d already made the decision around the top 2 percent of income earners that this was a balanced approach.


Supplementary Question


A. Weaver: Well, to enlighten the minister, what I’m asking is: why do you have a task force to do something if you’re not going to listen to what they’re doing and actually make decisions before they’ve done what they said they’re going to do?

In fact, the MSP Task Force had more to say. On the payroll tax, which is the direction this government has chosen to go, they said this. “A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several competitiveness challenges.” This concern about business competitiveness is precisely why the task force was leaning towards a combination of measures to make up the revenues, not just by a payroll tax.

They specifically stated this. “We feel that it is important that revenue be replaced by a combination of measures in order to best mitigate the negative impacts of each.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Did the minister either:

a) read the MSP Task Force interim report but choose to ignore its key recommendations, or
b) render her decision to implement the employers health tax prior to the interim report actually being available?

It has to be one. Is it (a) or (b)?


Answer


Hon. C. James: As I already said to the member, we received the interim report. We are ultimately accountable as government. It is our job to receive the report, make a decision based on the information that was there. We received the interim report. We made our decision. We believe it’s a balanced approach, as I said. The member may have a difference of opinion. The member may be interested in looking at personal income tax, and that’s the member’s prerogative. We made a decision as government.

I would also remind the member that, if we are looking at competitiveness when it comes to businesses here in British Columbia, two of the key issues that businesses have been calling for action on over and over again are the issue of child care and the issue of housing. We moved on both of those to address competitiveness and recruitment and retention of employees in British Columbia.

Introducing Employers’ Health Tax before completion of MSP Tax Force report?

For more than three years I’ve been pressuring government to eliminate the unfair and regressive flat rate Medical Services Premium (MSP). In fact the promise to do so was a major BC Green Party platform commitment, and we outlined how we would recoup the lost income by following the lead of Ontario. We were very pleased when government also agreed to eliminate the MSP.

But rather than specifying how the lost revenue would be replaced, the BC NDP decided to set up an expert committee to provide it with advice. And so, on November 2, 2017, the BC Government announced the establishment of an MSP Task Force.

The Task Force will be issuing its final report on March 31, 2018.

Imagine my surprise when BC Budget 2018 outlined the creation of an Employers’ Health Tax to replace the MSP. It seemed very odd to me that government was making such an announcement prior to the Task Force producing their report.

Exploring this was the subject of my exchange in Question Period with the Minister of Finance today. Below I reproduce the video and text this discussion. I hope that government will reflect upon their decision and be open to revisiting it once the Task Force final report is made available.


Video of Exchange



Question


A. Weaver: Let’s be clear: government misled British Columbians on the B.C. Hydro rate. There’s no two ways of saying it. I find it remarkable that they’re trying to claim otherwise.

Government established an MSP Task Force in November to advise it on how best to eliminate the MSP premium and make up the revenue. The task force comprised experts in both economics and public policy. The team analyzed hundreds of submissions from individuals and stakeholders. They consulted with labour and business groups. They undertook an in-depth tax policy analysis. Their report advising on how best to eliminate MSP premiums isn’t due until the end of March. Rather than waiting for the report, government eliminated MSP premiums and instituted an employers health tax.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Government established the task force. Government selected the experts, the mandate and the reporting timeline. Why would government forge ahead on this tax change without waiting for the task force to submit their recommendations?


Answer


Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. As the member knows, part of my mandate as Finance Minister is to look at how we can ensure a more fair tax system. The outstanding piece in British Columbia, on an issue of a fair tax system in particular, was the MSP, the fact that MSP was not eliminated. It was the most regressive tax, and it needed to be addressed.

It became clear that this was something that we could accomplish in the budget. We looked at the interim report that came from the MSP panel. We, in fact, agreed with a couple of the pieces that they brought forward, which was to eliminate the premiums all at once, not to do a further phase out, as we had done with the first 50 percent, and to give some advanced notice. Again, that’s why we’ve given a year.

I look forward to their final report. We took into account their interim report. And I’m very proud that we are going to save families and individuals in this province by getting rid of MSP once and for all.


Supplementary Question


A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. She’ll get no argument from us about MSP being a regressive form of taxation.

Since government announced the employers health tax, we’ve been hearing concerns from businesses, school boards and local governments regarding its potential negative impacts. We’re hearing concerns about everything, from impact on businesses’ bottom line to the ability of the public service to provide the services they are required to provide.

The MSP Task Force was going to issue a final report in just a few weeks, advising government on the best path to eliminating premiums. When the Minister of Finance established the task force, she said this: “Engaging a panel of respected experts in economics, law and public policy, we will ensure the path we take is fiscally responsible, fair and evidence-based.”

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. In light of the desire to ensure that public policy is informed by evidence, did government ask the task force to expedite their work in order to provide final recommendations before government made a decision on establishing the employer health tax?


Answer


Hon. C. James: We received an interim report from the committee. We made the decision, as government, to move ahead on getting rid of a regressive tax. We felt that was important. We were able to do it in this budget, and we thought this was the right time. We ensured that we gave a year’s notice so that we would be able to work through the challenges.

The member has raised some of the issues that we are hearing and discussing. We are going to continue those discussions to ensure we can cover those bases, but we will be eliminating MSP by 2020. People are saving money — $1.3 billion this year — by the reduction of MSP by 50 percent, and we look forward, as I said, to savings for families and individuals in this province, making life more affordable for the people of B.C.

Responding to the February 2018 Speech from the Throne

Today in the Legislature I rose to speak to the first BC NDP Speech from the Throne. As I noted in my brief media statement following the Throne Speech, I am encouraged to see our shared values represented in the speech.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my nearly two hour long response.


Text of Speech


A. Weaver: Please let me start by saying congratulating the new Leader of the Official Opposition, who just spoke to the throne speech a few minutes ago. I recognize that it’s a lot of work going through a leadership campaign, particularly one that was, frankly, quite interesting and quite well contested. So congratulations to the leader. I look forward to months and years of working collectively, particularly on this day, Valentine’s Day.

I’d like to start my response to the Speech from the Throne also thanking my family, my constituents and, particularly, the hard-working staff who I am blessed to be able to work with on a day-to-day basis.

Like the Leader of the Official Opposition, I wish to congratulate now publicly whoever wins the by-election today in Kelowna West, an interesting riding made up of both West Kelowna and Westbank Nation and large parts of downtown Kelowna.

You know, I spent ten days in Kelowna this last little while knocking on doors and getting to know the Kelowna residents and the issues there. One of my first tasks was to actually go to Ben Stewart’s office and say to him: “Good luck, Ben. We’re going to make you work for this one.” So I’m excited to see what actually happens today. We know that the turnout is low. For whatever happens, I’m sure everyone on both sides of this House will welcome the new MLA with open arms and look forward to working with him or her as well in the days ahead.

I found this throne speech to be quite refreshing. I used the words “cautiously optimistic” to describe my initial response to this. There’s a number of areas covered in the throne speech — many, many areas — some of which are gone into in detail, some of which are in less such detail.

There’s no question, in my view, that people are, front and centre, the focus of this throne speech. I did particularly applaud the throne speech commemorating the good work of David Barrett, who, frankly, is one of my heroes, a man who stood for principle when he ran for politics, a man who made decisions based on evidence. Sometimes they weren’t popular decisions. But the test of time is such that meant much of his legacy still remains with us today, whether it be the agricultural land reserve, whether it be quite a number of our environmental programs and positions here in British Columbia or whether it be our public auto insurance, which, admittedly, is under some financial stress as we speak.

The throne speech outlines a number of areas in terms of affordability and housing; child care; economic opportunity; services for people, including health care; education; public safety; infrastructure; mental health; and, of course, a section towards the end on climate change.

Now, hon. Speaker, as you will know, the results of the last election were such that there was no clear majority of MLAs in this House. As such, the B.C. Green caucus went into negotiations with both the Liberals and the NDP to see if we could come to an agreement that would allow for confidence in supply to be given in throne speech and budget measures while retaining our autonomy in terms of a minority, as opposed to a coalition, government.

The key issue that our agreement ultimately came down upon was the issue of climate change, an issue where we felt that ultimately, the previous government was not really willing to take the steps necessary to deliver on the promises made, both at the time and previously, by the government led by Gordon Campbell — a government that, as you know, hon. Speaker, I supported and worked with to try to develop policy measures that were systematically dismantled year after year once leadership changed at that level.

I didn’t think it’d be easy. The last election campaign was not an easy one to be a B.C. Green. It was very personal, a lot of very partisan attacks. I honestly didn’t think it would be possible that the B.C. Greens would be able to set up a confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. NDP. There it is, in all honesty. It was a personal campaign.

But ultimately, in sitting at that table in those days in the lead-up to our final decision, it became apparent to me and to my colleague Sonia, who was at the table, that both the Premier and the now Finance Minister were people that we felt we could relate to, people who we believed ultimately wanted to put the best interests of British Colombians front and centre in decision-making — not the backroom crowd but British Columbians.

Again, people watching the media in the lead-up to the actual agreement would notice that there was some public tension between the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself in terms of some disagreements that typically got amplified far beyond what they actually were. But in those discussions, it became very clear to me that the Premier cared. He was a person who cared about the best wishes of not just his constituents but all British Colombians. And ultimately it was clear to me that we were going to go into an agreement with the B.C. NDP. I haven’t regretted it that since that day. The proof has been in what has been delivered in our discussions, our deliberations and where we have come to today.

Now, I recognize there’s a lack of substance in some of these issues brought forward in the throne speech, and I’m the first one to call out the fact that there’s a lot of rhetoric and, at times, little substance in some key areas. But my experience, our experience, over these last six or seven months has been one of collaboration, of actually being listened to, of actually trying to do what’s right as opposed to what’s populist.

You know, we see it now in what’s going on in British Columbia, where a government essentially says, “You know what? We recognize that the product that is in a pipe, diluted bitumen….” There had never been an environmental assessment process when that product switched from synthetic crude, which used to be shipped, and where diluted bitumen started getting packed in with that. There was never any assessment, and even in the NEB process, there were clear recommendations that came out and conditions that had to be met — a number of which are British Columbia conditions.

So when the government says that it’s going to do what it must do, which is look out for the interests of British Colombians by trying to develop an understanding of the science of diluted bitumen, if spilled over our streams and lakes as this product comes across this province — simply doing what’s right — we get a knee-jerk response, not only a petty response, from Alberta. But it saddens me most the way that the B.C. Liberals are playing politics over this.

The Leader of the Official Opposition just said that British Columbia will be an embarrassing jurisdiction. British Columbia will never be an embarrassing jurisdiction. He argued that if we don’t cave in to the demands of Alberta, we will become an embarrassing jurisdiction. What sort of jurisdiction is embarrassing, when we are the most beautiful place in the world to live, where we have some of the best and brightest minds in the world come here because of the quality of life we can offer?

Our education system worldwide is second to none. Industry is thriving, and we’re a destination of choice for people all over the world. I’m not embarrassed about that. I’ll never be embarrassed about that. Frankly, I’m proud to say that we support the decision of the Environment Minister and the Premier in terms of doing what’s right, in terms of listening to the Royal Society of Canada expert panel report, the National Academy of Sciences in the United States expert panel report. The former says we don’t know what’s going to happen with a spill of diluted bitumen; the latter says we simply can’t clean it up.

The Premier wants to simply explore the science behind that to ensure that we are protected here in British Columbia, that our natural beauty and the risk that we’re taking is actually mitigated, that someone’s willing to clean up. The response we get is that this is petty, and British Columbia will be an embarrassing jurisdiction if we don’t cave. Shame on the Leader of the Official Opposition for that.

To actually have the audacity to claim that somehow Alberta is right to take it out on the B.C. wine industry just is mind-boggling. We should be united together in this Legislature — united together, standing up for the B.C. wine industry, telling all of Canada that it is not okay to put the rights of a multinational based in Texas and its shareholders against small business owners in the Okanagan. Putting small business owners, putting family business, protecting the rights of British Columbians — that’s what we were elected to do. We’re not elected to ensure profits are maximized in a multinational. We’re elected to ensure that externalities are internalized and that if there’s going to be a spill, there’s money there available to clean up that spill. But nobody talks about that.

Then just yesterday we heard Mr. Trudeau say that in fact it was a horse trade. All of this was really just a horse trade, because we wanted Notley to bring in her climate plan, and the only way we’d get her to do that was if we gave her something. But we’re not going to give her the Energy East, because the mayor of Montreal was quite upset, and there are an awful lot of Liberal seats in Quebec that we might lose, and who cares about B.C. anyway? Who cares about B.C.? There’s only a few Liberal seats, and we might gain as many in Alberta and Saskatchewan as we lose in B.C.

This is the way the decision was made. It was not made because of what’s in the best interests of Canada or British Columbians.

Again, I was the only MLA in this Legislature who participated in that NEB process. I participated in two different ways. I was qualified twice: first as an expert, with background in ocean physics, and second as an MLA representing an affected area. In both those cases, we examined these documents very, very carefully.

Now, while I know members opposite and the government was very, very free and easy with approving, did they actually know that the entire oil spill response in that process was predicated on the existence of calm conditions, with no waves, winds blowing offshore, if any, and 20 hours of sunlight? Now, there is not a latitude south of Tuktoyaktuk that has 20 hours of sunlight on any day of the year. So you would think, as a participant asking for a more realistic scenario, that I’d get a response. But no, the response I get is: “The NEB has enough information on which to make a decision.”

I could outline a litany of these. The model that was used for the ocean circulation in the region — do you know how that’s validated? How do you think a model was validated? Now, these are complex numerical models that have thousands of lines of code, that are essentially discretizing very complex physics. The way it was validated, was a guy fell off a B.C. ferry who drifted. The model said: kind of drifted the right way. You can’t make this stuff up.

The boundary conditions for the model were validated using tides. Well, you don’t need a complex model, looking at the mixing in the Strait of Juan de Fuca or Georgia Strait, talk about tides. Tides we’ve known about for decades. The model was incorrect. It was not the appropriate tool to be used.

It was not only me who said it. It was David Farmer — Royal Society of London, distinguished scholar, who was also at the Institute of Ocean Sciences. He said the same thing, as did others who participated.

I applaud government, and I’m glad that they’re actually standing up. I’m glad that today, just moments ago, the government announced it would take steps to promote B.C. wines. My very first response was to go out and buy three bottles of B.C. wine: one from Thornhill Creek, ironically and quite appropriately Canada’s first carbon-neutral winery; one somewhat humorously from Dirty Laundry, based in Summerland — you know, joking NDP Alberta and NDP B.C., I thought it was appropriate; and the third one from Mission Hill, of course symbolic of the race that was there.

That was my response. What was the B.C. Liberal response? It was blaming government. It wasn’t standing up for industry. And what’s worse…. In those ten days I spent in Kelowna, I consulted wine industry expert after wine industry expert after restaurateur.

Let me tell you: the wine industry in B.C. is very, very upset at the B.C. Liberals right now. I’ll tell you why.

Let me tell you, the wine industry in B.C. is very, very upset at the B.C. Liberals right now, and I’ll tell you why. Because despite my protestations sitting opposite, pointing out that I did not believe that those specialty wine licences would stand up to a NAFTA challenge, and despite my saying, “Don’t do this. I’m not sure you’ve got the appropriate legal advice,” government went ahead and created six new specialty wine store licences for grocery stores to sell wines in B.C.

We’re not talking about the 50 or 60 — I forget the number — that were grandfathered in prior to these trade agreements, that are owned by the wine institute. These are six new ones that the government decided to create. Well, we now have a WTO trade complaint launched by Australia against British Columbia wines because of these six. We have a NAFTA challenge launched by the U.S. over these six licences.

That’s the B.C. Liberal response. They have the gall and the audacity to say that we’re not protecting B.C. wine — as the government announces measures today to actually promote B.C. wine — yet their direct policy measurements have led to WTO and NAFTA challenges directly against B.C. on the international scene.

You know, you should take a look at your own house before you start throwing stones at other people’s houses, to be honest. And that’s what is so refreshing about this throne speech. I truly believe it steps back and makes us reflect upon what’s important in British Columbia.

I’m going to go through the throne speech and give credit to now members of the opposition for some of the ideas in it that clearly were put forward by them and that have been adopted by the B.C. NDP.

For example, when we talk about the actions of affordability. In the throne speech, the B.C. NDP outline the number of actions that have happened, one of which was to cut MSP premiums in half.

Now, we recognize the B.C. Liberals had already promised that. They’d already promised to do that. Again, this is an issue that we felt we could have done much more aggressively, and we campaigned on eliminating them through bringing it into a progressive health care premium much akin to what’s done in Ontario, but we recognize that this has been done. We applaud this, and we congratulate the B.C. Liberals on making sure this happened.

Another thing that happened in there is they talk about affordability measures with respect to the removal of tolls. Now I recognize that the B.C. NDP campaigned on this. I recognize the B.C. Liberals were a little more subtle in their campaigning, and, rather than eliminating the tolls, they were going to put a cap on, which, frankly, was a little more clever because it would not have allowed for the transfer of debt onto provincial debt to be taxpayer-supported.

But in the throne speech that happened this summer, the Liberals were also going to eliminate the tolls. So we really were standing alone in saying we don’t support it. We continue not to support it, but that’s the nature of a democracy. We don’t believe that’s correct, but we understand that it’s moving forward, and the B.C. NDP — and, frankly, the B.C. Liberals — will have to explain that to the voters.

We’ve told you why we don’t like it. We don’t like it because we think it’s fiscally irresponsible policy. It’s a form of vote-buying, in our view, and it actually transfers onto provincial debt — taxpayer-supported debt — $4.7 billion. It puts us in a position where we can’t deal with some of the things that we might otherwise do, like stop Site C, which honestly is something that I still don’t understand to this day, based on the fiscal outlook of what that’s going to cost.

Also, in the case of the Golden Ears and Mann bridges, outlined as a success to date, we know that that was not done in consultation with local mayors who opposed it. The concern over this is there is a discussion right now happening in Metro Vancouver on mobility pricing. Whether that comes to fruition or not is not the issue. The issue is, once you pull away tolls, it’s very difficult to put them on. And there are unforeseen consequences, like people who wanted to pay those tolls because they wanted to have access in a more timely fashion to the Vancouver region.

Another action on affordability that was highlighted: cutting student loan interest by 2.5 percent so that graduates can get out of debt more quickly on their path to a chosen career. Obviously, we wholeheartedly support that. Again, this is something that the B.C. Liberals had promised to do.

I’m pleased that we have an example where the B.C. NDP have adopted something the B.C. Liberals have done that we agreed to as well. Let’s focus on our successes. We have all agreement in the House that this is a good thing to do. That’s what we’re elected to do — to put forward good public policy.

We hear about making adult education and language learning tuition-free, so that tens of thousands of British Columbians can prepare for a degree and upgrade their skills, work. Great public policy, something we supported — glad to see that that’s a success — and something that we started to see emerge in the Liberals’ throne speech in the summer as well.

On the topics of affordability in the throne speech, the government points to its attempt to keep hydro rates affordable. They’ve asked B.C.’s commission to freeze hydro rates for the next year.

Now, I appreciate the softening in that language, because obviously, you cannot have your cake and eat it too in this area, in light of the fact that you cannot campaign on freezing B.C. Hydro rates and also campaign on the autonomy of the BCUC, because they’re mutually inconsistent. Either you agree to the autonomy of the BCUC and make a suggestion that you’d like to see it frozen, or you freeze it through order-in-council, which, historically, had been done by the B.C. Liberals.

The reality is I’m not sure BCUC will approve that. Frankly, B.C. Hydro looks pretty foolish, after having a 4 percent increase approved by the BCUC as part of a long-term plan. They look pretty foolish going to the BCUC now and saying: “We don’t really want an increase.” If I were on the BCUC, I’d be asking: “So what’s changed with your accounting?” Frankly, it does not instill confidence in B.C. Hydro if they can actually suddenly justify, through different accounting, the lack of an increase.

You know, if BCUC rejects a freeze, so be it. I think the electorate are the ones who the government have to be accountable to. We did not campaign on freezing B.C. Hydro rates, nor did the B.C. Liberals, because frankly, I don’t think it’s fiscally responsible. And honestly, it doesn’t actually deal with the issue of affordability.

Let’s take a look at a simply example that would. Right now we have tier 1 and tier 2 rates. Now, if there were six people living in a small house, they are almost certainly going to be having six showers. They’re going to have six bedrooms that are heated. They might have an electric car that they share. But their fixed tier 1 rate is the same as somebody in a 10,000-foot mansion with one person.

The electricity usage is not normalized by the number of people it’s being applied to. It’s basically tier 1 based on your actual meter. That’s not right. That doesn’t actually address the issue. The issue would be addressed with by dealing with the rates — the rate of that tier 1, tier 2 — and focusing on providing assistance, like as has been done in other provinces, particularly in cold provinces where heating bills can be outrageous in the winter.

I’m getting a $750 electricity bill. It’s kind of high for two months, but there are four people in my house. I don’t know how somebody on a low income could afford 750 bucks, particularly if they live in Dawson Creek, particularly if they’re heating their homes with electricity instead of gas. How could they afford this?

These are the measures and means and ways we deal with the affordability issue, by targeting those who need the leg up, rather than blanket hydro rate freezes for one and all.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, again — I’m not — I’ve never been opposed to…. Natural gas right now is a premium for heating. It’s actually quite cheap. It’s $2 and change at Chetwynd, I understand — $2.50 or something like that. Really, really cheap. You’re basically losing money taking it out of the ground in northern B.C. But the way you make money…. The reason why Fort Nelson has dried up is because there are dry gas fields, obviously. But we’ve got the liquids in the Montney, which we can actually sell.

On this topic that was so astutely brought up by my friend from Peace River South, I met in Kelowna West a fellow in a coffee shop who had just left Fort Nelson. He’d sold his natural gas company. The reason why he left is he felt the long-term economics of natural gas is not good in light of the fact that there is a global oversupply.

What’s his focus? Where has he moved into? He’s moved into the petrochemical and value-added industry in the carbon sector. There is a future. We are going to need plastics. We can actually extract hydrogen from the methane. We can actually create hydrogen, which a storage fuel. There is a lot of innovation potential that can and will happen in our natural gas sector, but it means we have to think differently from what we are doing.

In the throne speech, another success that was mentioned was ICBC. Or rather, the throne speech states: “Years of apparent neglect and inaction have led to big problems at B.C.’s public auto insurer. This government has rejected the double-digit increase in rates for drivers and has taken decisive action to keep rates down.” That’s a success outlined in response to the escalating financial crisis in ICBC.

Again, we were somewhat critical of government when, after the initial report was made public, things were taken off the table prior to standing back and reflecting upon that which was actually contained and what the solutions were, but we do support a number of the measures. We do believe that the red-light cameras being enabled is a good thing. They were just turned off. We do believe that we need to take a close look at some of the soft-tissue claims. We also like the focus where we’re focusing on the patient and the care rather than on the actual litigative aspects of ICBC.

There’s an awful lot that needs to be done. In other jurisdictions that have public insurance, there’s a form of no-fault. I know that trial lawyers will be very upset about this, but it’s a discussion we need to have, about keeping prices down. Other provinces that don’t have public insurance have a form of private insurance. With private insurance, you start to get rules and regulations as to why someone would actually offer you insurance, for example. They put limits on claims or they will limit the amount that they’ll pay off in claims. Again, we believe that that’s a discussion we should have.

Obviously, our preference is to fix ICBC. As I said at the very beginning, it is a legacy — frankly, a good legacy — of Dave Barrett, who was mentioned in the beginning of the throne speech as a leader in British Columbia. We continue to look forward to see how the Attorney General, who I see has joined us here…. I do apologize, hon. Speaker; I’m not supposed to mention about the presence or absence of any member in the House. We do look forward to seeing the measures that he will continue to outline as we move forward with respect to revitalizing ICBC.

To the issue of housing. We know that the issue of affordability is fundamentally coupled with the issue of housing availability and affordability. It’s not only reducing tolls. It’s not only eliminating MSP or reducing them. It’s actually being able to find a place to live and a house to live in that you can afford. Now, the B.C. NDP, during the last election campaign, campaigned vigorously on the fact that they would take be taking steps to deal with both supply and demand. I tend to agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition that the 114,000-new-unit number is wishful. I’m not so sure I understand where that number comes from, and I do resonate with the analysis that was presented.

On the other hand, I do recall — and I commend it, and continue to — the good work of the now Attorney General who was raising so many issues with respect to the demand side. We see, mentioned in the throne speech: “Government’s first step must be to address demand and stabilize B.C.’s out-of-control real estate and rental market.”

I’m very pleased to see those words there. We know that this is not a supply problem. It is a demand problem. We know that there are 7½ billion people in the world. We know that around the world there are tumultuous times. We know that real estate is a safe haven, particularly when it’s British Columbia real estate. A lot of capital is coming into B.C. That capital is being parked here as an investment, as a bank account to ensure that money is protected because of our stable democracy, our quality of life, our attractiveness and the fact that real estate, particularly in some regions, was affordable.

Hon. Speaker, I will be designate on this particular speech.

The issue of affordability is not only a Metro Vancouver issue nowadays. Perceived value is not there, to the extent that it was, in Vancouver. But perceived value is there in Victoria, in Kelowna, in Nanaimo, in Parksville and many other places in British Columbia where we’re now seeing prices dramatically increased as people leave Vancouver and say: “I’ll sell my $300,000 bungalow, which I bought 15 years ago, for millions. Then I’ll come and drop a million bucks in Victoria — what’s that? — and I’ll pocket $2 million and do very well, as a retirement fund.”

The problem here is that the disparity between income and rent, as well as housing, has grown so much that we have a crisis. Crises require dramatic steps. Tinkering around the edges will not deal with the problem.

My own property assessment value, its paper increase, went up 25 percent in one year. All that tells me is we need a 25 percent correction in the market where I live, because that’s a completely artificial gain. It doesn’t reflect the value of my home. It reflects speculation in my part of the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, which has seen out-of-control real estate prices.

We called for bold steps, mirroring what was done in New Zealand, mirroring what was done in Australia. Bold steps to say we have a crisis now, and when you have a crisis, you need to deal with this in a very, very firm way. We called for a ban on offshore capital being allowed to buy property and land in British Columbia.

The stories we got — whether it be the thousands of hectares in northern B.C. that were bought up by offshore corporations to grow hay that is bubble wrapped and shipped abroad, creating an externality of rising hay prices in the region and lack of availability. This isn’t right. We’ve heard stories about one constituent who came into my office — well two of them, actually — how they had two friends, or friends of friends, come here on a tourist visa, and each of these business people bought five houses and then got on a plane and went home, and those five houses lie vacant.

We’ve got story after story after story flooding our in-box. And let me tell you, I have never seen so much for support for an issue as I have seen for support to take immediate steps to clamp down on the ability of offshore capital to come into British Columbia to purchase our real estate.

A number of years ago — I think it’s three years ago now — after senior homes and the issue of MSP premiums and the affordability issue that was raised, I raise it in this House. We started a campaign, a petition campaign. We started a public relations campaign to gauge public support. I think it was overwhelming that people felt it was a regressive tax, and they wanted to see it dealt with in a progressive fashion. We received thousands and thousands of emails. Our petition had tens of thousands of names on it. But that pales in comparison as to the support for taking steps now.

The most outspoken, the most passionate people speaking out are actually first-generation immigrants to British Columbia. People who came to British Columbia, with their families in many cases, for a better life. They came to this country because of what we could offer in terms of opportunities — for jobs, for places to live and for the beautiful environment.

Now they see that their children are no longer afforded the same opportunities that they were. These are the people speaking out. These are the people who are begging government to take steps. So while I asked it again today in question period, I got the same answer that we must wait for the budget.

Let me tell government that there is pent-up anxiety here on this issue, and we hope that government delivers on its promises. We certainly hope that government delivers on its promises.

We were somewhat disappointed with the response that is being done with respect to Airbnb. We recognize that it was a good first step from a taxation point of view. But Airbnb got the best advertising they could possibly have wanted here in British Columbia.

Unless you couple that with an aggressive ability to allow municipalities to actually limit, to have business licences or to tax though vacancy rates across the province, this will do little other than incentivize a particular company, a winner. The government has in essence chosen a winner. What about vrbo, vacation rentals by owner, another organization? What about the people who list on Craigslist? It’s a dangerous precedent to set when you are picking winners and losers, particularly when we’re in a close to 0 percent vacancy rate.

The throne speech says that government will introduce legislation to crack down on tax fraud, tax evasion and money laundering in B.C.’s real estate market. We are very excited about that. We welcome that, and again we look forward to the details that will be outlined, hopefully, in the budget coming up next week.

Again in the throne speech, the budget talks about, “the government will begin to make the largest investment in affordable housing in B.C. history, including social housing, student housing, seniors housing, Indigenous housing and affordable rentals for middle-income families,” and so on, so forth.

We welcome investment in affordable housing, and we look forward to seeing what the specifics are in this regard. We were very concerned about some of the language emanating out with respect to how the rental agreements will be changed, because we must protect renters and the rights of renters. But we also must protect the rights of landlords, particularly those people who didn’t have any pension — those people who put real estate as the source of their pension. If we start to clamp down on their ability to make ends meet, we don’t actually deal with the problem of affordability. We create an additional problem.

The throne speech talks about enabling local governments to plan for affordable rental housing by zoning areas of their communities for that. Again, we’re excited to see that this is coming through. It’s been asked for by both UBCM as well as the city of Vancouver. One of the things we campaigned on, which we’re pleased to see in there, is that the government plans, through the throne speech, to work with local governments to help plan for and build housing near transit corridors. It makes sense. It reduces congestion, and it maximally utilizes space.

We’re interested to learn more — details were scant — about what the government’s thoughts are on this new housing hub that’s being proposed as a division of B.C. Housing. We are unsure of what this goal is, but it seems essential that a new supply would meet the needs of the communities that are seeking new supply. We assume the housing hub will actually work to ensure government investment matches community needs in some way or another. Again, looking forward to the details coming up with that.

Coming to where we’re a little concerned, and what we’re again looking for information for, is the issue of security and safety for renters. Where it says: “government will introduce stronger protections for renters and owners of manufactured homes, and protections for renters facing eviction due to renovation or demolition.” Now again, clearly, there are some very high-profile cases where seniors or others are being evicted for so-called renovictions for a simple paint and shuffle so that rents can be jacked up.

Clearly, we share the concern of government in that regard. However, again, one has to be very careful in introducing legislation that one doesn’t hurt the good landlords and, actually, doesn’t stop them from being able to continue to rent. As we know, if you start to put more and more regulations on housing rentals, we may start to drive that stock out of the rental market — unless it’s done carefully.

There comes a point when someone says: “It’s just not worth the hassle. I’ll hold this, but I’m not going to rent it, because if I rent it, my rent is so controlled that it’s going to cost me $10K when the tenant moves out, and now I can’t reap that.” One has to be very, very, very careful with this.

At the same time, we do have forms of renovictions going on now. We have demovictions going on now in the heart of Burnaby, near the Kingsgate Mall, where low-lying three-story apartment buildings are being condemned left, right and centre. It’s going on now as we speak — right now — in downtown Kelowna as land assemblies are being made in downtown Kelowna. Along Cambie Street in Vancouver, it’s one big land assembly.

This sounds like, “Okay, we’re going to end up building rental accommodation or condos or whatever,” but when you displace these people and you just hold these properties for land assembly, you are creating affordability issues.

The city of Burnaby is in crisis from a rental perspective. High-end condos are replacing low-lying affordable rental units with no plan in place to actually deal with the displaced people. This is a crisis.

Sure, it brings in lots of money through development fees, etc., and through taxes to municipal coffers, but it creates a social problem that we have to get a handle on. So we’re looking forward to seeing what, as the government talks about introducing the housing measures, how it’s going to deal with issues like this — with issues like presales of condominiums and others offshore.

One of the things that we’re delighted to see in this throne speech is a very positive step forward. It’s a positive step forward that we tried to pressure, as did the now government of the former government, to take steps to remedy.

That is the inability, at present, of colleges and universities across British Columbia to build student housing on their campuses without incurring public debt. There are so many potential…. There are people waiting across British Columbia, whether it be Camosun College in my riding, University of Victoria in my riding, UBC, Simon Fraser, Kwantlen College…. Capilano has no housing. The ability for these institutions to build housing on campus will take students out of the market in larger communities onto campuses, thereby easing pressure, as well, in the larger communities.

We have a captive audience on campuses. We know that if there are creative means of allowing these institutions access to capital, that capital has a clientele that will service it in perpetuity. Those are the students in the institution, and they can do so in a very effective means. So we are pleased to see this.

The government also talks, in the throne speech, about making the largest investment in retrofits and renovation of social housing in B.C. in more than 20 years. Talking about…. These upgrades will reserve much-needed housing stock, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce home heating bills.

Now again, cautiously optimistic. But I get a little worried about the amount of money being spent and where that money is going to be coming from. This is why we’re quite excited, as the throne speech mentions the emerging economy task force and the innovation commission, that there is a very real move to invigorate the B.C. economy in areas where we’re leaders not only today but also tomorrow.

But with that, we also recognize that retrofitting creates cottage industries of renewable energy companies, building designers and so forth. We know the previous Premier, prior to the last government, recognized that too through the programs that he and his government introduced that actually spurred growth in a diverse array of the building sector — the clean, green building growth.

It’s a matter of saving money. If you can actually spend 15 percent to build a little bit more, to build a building right now, you’ll amortize that in a few years based on today’s technology. It’s about giving people the ability to do that, and we look forward to seeing how that’s going to come down in weeks ahead.

To the issue of child care. Much has been made about the lack of the word “$10-a-day” in the throne speech. To be honest, that’s a slogan. The actual $10-a day plan was a community plan. That’s what it used to be called. Didn’t have as catchy a slogan. We recognize that child care is an important component both of our platform, the NDP platform and also the Liberal throne speech. That we need investments in this. But the investments must come strategically, not through a slogan but ensuring that we have quality access not only to child care but early childhood education and educators for our next generation, the future of our society.

We see a lot in the throne speech about child care. We’re a little troubled by the lack of discussion in there about early childhood education. Child care is not about building spaces. Child care is also about ensuring that we treat the profession of early childhood educators and child care providers as a valued, high-paying profession in our society.

One of the barriers to actual access to child care is the barrier of actual trade ECEs, because as a society, we seem to think it’s okay to pay slightly above minimum wage to people who are looking after our next generation in the most critical years of their development. We really need to give our head a shake, as a society, if we think and expect a child care provider to earn $15 an hour, and we’re going to get people, the best and brightest, in this profession.

They’ve got to make ends meet. They have to afford bus fare. They have to afford to eat, and it’s tough. So we’re hoping we see not only the creation of spaces but incentive programs that will actually supplement the wages of our early childhood…. Such programs did exist in B.C., and they probably still exist in some, but not to the scale that they’re needed.

We have to recognize that we need to ensure that ECEs, child care providers, are viewed, like teachers, as the most important profession in our society. What sort of society are we if we don’t view as our number one priority the education of our next generation, who are the next generation that will take care of us as we age, the next generation that will discover the cure for cancer, the next generation that will find the innovation to ensure that B.C.’s economy is competitive internationally. That is why in the last election we campaigned on investing more than $4 billion over four years into both public education as well as early childhood education and child care.

You know, we have a present system in child care whereby access is a problem. Let’s suppose I’m a low-income person and I want to get access to a child care space. I have to pay up front, and at the end of the year when I file my tax return, I get my child care tax credit back. I don’t need the money then. I needed it to pay my fees up front.

That is why one of the innovative ways that we put in our platform was actually to change the child care tax credit into a child care taxable benefit. That is, money up front isn’t a barrier, but if you earn below a certain amount and you access that child care, it’s viewed as a taxable benefit. Let those who pay and those who want to pay and have the ability to pay, pay.

As Karen Isaac, executive director of B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society, said:

“Given the long history of Aboriginal children being forcibly removed from their families and communities to residential schools and current high numbers of Aboriginal children being taken into government care, it is no wonder that some poverty-stricken families may be ambivalent about government child care programs and see it as another type of policing over children and their families.”

We must be particularly careful as to how we implement and roll out our child care strategies in Indigenous communities in British Columbia. Our view of what appropriate child care is — when I say “our,” the majority of members in this House — is not the same view as many, many Indigenous communities across British Columbia.

Indigenous communities have a rich history…. Frankly, rich is the wrong word. They have a sordid history of having their children taken from their families, of being forced to have their children taken to schools that they did not intend to go to. So we look forward to seeing how this will play out in the days and weeks ahead.

We’re also keen to see that government is looking to create more child care spaces. But there was some worry, again, in the language of the throne speech where we talk about a main focus on changing unlicensed to licensed providers. That’s important. We want our children to be looked after — licensed providers. But that’s not the only thing we need to focus on.

Obviously, this so-called Baby Mac law will be critical in terms of dealing with issues that led to the tragic death of baby Mac in 2017. However, we must remember that it’s not only about creation of space, and it doesn’t just mean converting unlicensed to licensed. It also means attracting new people into the profession by paying them well, by ensuring that societies value this through education and by working with employers to help facilitate employers actually building child care and early childhood education programs in their corporations and places.

There was a lack of focus of early childhood education in the throne speech. To us, our view is that child care is not only about babysitting; it’s about education. When a child is growing from those early years through to puberty and adulthood, they are very much influenced by the surroundings about them. We hope, as we discuss the child care plan moving forward, that we recognize and reflect upon not only the rights of Aboriginal people but also the importance of education in child care.

I’m very pleased that in the throne speech we hear a focus on poverty reduction. The B.C. Liberals have acknowledged that they’ve stopped listening to British Columbians about the importance of poverty reduction; about the importance of the growing disparity between those who have and those who don’t; and about, from a purely fiscal point of view, the fact that it costs society when this disparity grows in terms of the services that have to be provided.

You eliminate poverty, you eliminate the needs for a lot of social services designed to actually deal with poverty. This is why a housing-first strategy is the preferred approach by so many poverty advocates and why it has been so successful in jurisdictions in the United States where it’s been implemented.

You promote a housing-first strategy…. You cannot deal with issues of mental health and substance abuse unless you get someone in a home, a safe, stable place to be. Once they’re there, these other issues can be dealt with.

In doing so, you save from the judicial system, you save in the hospital system, the medical system, you save in the health care system, you save in the welfare system. You give people housing first. We hope that we a move towards that as this government continues to deliver on its throne speech.

We’re thrilled with the discussion of the B.C. Human Rights Commission and the fact that it’ll be rejuvenated. We’re delighted with the report that was recently released by the Fair Wages Commission, alluded to in the throne speech. Again, $15 was a slogan. How do we get there is what matters, and what do we do beyond that?

We strongly support the recommendations of the Fair Wages Commission to become an established entity in perpetuity in this jurisdiction in order to take politics out of this decision-making and setting minimum wage.

We also look forward to seeing what some of these labour code changes are going to look like. We have little detail, again, and much rhetoric in the throne speech. Good words — I’m not criticizing the words. But some of the details we await to see and look forward to exploring those with our colleagues on both sides of this House.

Now, coming to the economy. I am absolutely delighted and our caucus is delighted with the focus in this throne speech on what B.C. can be leaders at or are leaders at.

I take the example of the forest industry. This is one of our strategic strengths. We have, in British Columbia, three things that no one else in the world can compete with us with. Number one, we are the most beautiful place in the world to live. I get nods over there from the members opposite. Number two, we have one of the best education systems in the world. I got nods there from the former Minister of Education. International assessments year after year have B.C. at the top.

I also have nods over here from another minister. There’s a collegiality here. It’s Valentine’s Day. We’ve all got to get on.

It’s a strategic strength. We know that we can offer employers some of the most highly skilled and educated workers in the world. And, because of our environment, we can attract and retain them here because it’s the most beautiful place to live.

But we also have access to boundless forests, wood, energy in renewable forms and water. These are our strategic strengths that it’s recognized within this throne speech that we can build on as we move towards a sustainable, diverse economy of the 21st century.

We can actually race to the bottom and try to play that game, but we will lose that game. If I dig dirt out of the ground in B.C., there’s a cost that we internalize here. We value our social programs. We value the importance of a minimum wage. We value our environment. It costs a little more to dig the dirt out of the ground here compared to, say, some place like Indonesia, where the same environmental and social costs are not internalized as part of the cost of doing business.

We can compete by trying to do a race for the bottom and forget our values. This is what we’ve been doing with LNG — I’ll come back to that in a second — or we can recognize that the way we compete, the way we grow our GDP, is through more efficient means of doing it, by bringing our technology sector together with our resource sector.

We rely on Finnish technology in our forest sector because Finland recognized that bringing its forestry sector together with its technology sector would lead to innovation, in terms of more efficient extraction, as well as the ability to sell the knowledge and the technology associated with that efficiency.

We have, in British Columbia, some world-leading companies. One of my favourites is MineSense. MineSense is a B.C.-based company that is, at the rock face, able to determine whether or not its efficient to ship rock and crush it or lay it aside. This is a means and ways of extracting mining in much more efficient ways, more clean ways, more green ways that allows us to compete not only in the pure mineral extraction but through the technology that we’ve done.

This throne speech recognizes that our strengths are not in racing to the bottom, but in the fact that we are smarter, and we can attract and retain the best and the brightest.

Let me give you another example: Structurlam. Structurlam is an incredible Penticton-based value-added forest company that makes CrossLam and glulam, replacements for steel and concrete. An 18-storey student residence at UBC is being built from 100 percent wood, CrossLam and glulam products.

Portland has a facility being built there from B.C. products — CrossLam and glulam. Alberta. Across B.C. The Harbour Air terminal. These are beautiful value-added products that actually employ hundreds of people and use B.C. wood, family-based wood. They have a partnership with the Kalesnikoff family out in Nelson to provide some of their lumber.

This is where we succeed. Why do we need to ship a raw log to Korea or to China? China and Korea don’t need raw logs. They need lumber. They need value-added products, and if we bring technology together with our resource sector, we can do so more efficiently because the shipping is minimal in terms of the overall cost.

It’s the same, coming back to the pipeline. Why are we shipping diluted bitumen? Why are we even talking about shipping diluted bitumen to Asian markets? Frankly, I don’t even know that there’s an economic case for Kinder Morgan as it stands, because the largest supplier was going to be California, which now is going to get access to its upgraded products from the Keystone XL that’s just been approved.

Nevertheless, why would we ship those jobs offshore? This isn’t good for the Canadian economy. This isn’t good for jobs. Those jobs get shipped offshore, and what’s worse, we are now building a construction facility in Vancouver airport to import jet fuel. So rather than making the jet fuel here in British Columbia or in Alberta, we ship those jobs off and reimport. That’s the race to the bottom that I think we need to move away from.

And coming to LNG, we’ve had four years of this race to the bottom. This race to the bottom where we’ve tried so desperately to land the impossible that we literally gave away the farm. We’re not going to earn any royalties of any value or substance from natural gas for many, many years because of the deep-well credits where there was at least…. It’s more now, but there was $3.2 billion of unclaimed tax credits against future royalties because of the deep-well credits, which were designed back in the day when it was kind of costly to get deep vertical drills going. Since then, everyone’s got horizontal drilling, costs have come down and, what’s worse, is the previous government then jacked up the credits to shallow wells as well. So we’re not going to earn any money on royalties.

Where will we earn this LNG money, which, fortunately, we’re not focusing on in this throne speech? Well, we’d earn it in the LNG income tax. Oh, no. Capital costs are coming in there. The income tax is cut. We offer below-market electricity, ratepayer-funded Site C to deliver electricity into LNG. You know, literally, we give away the farm.

Landed costs of LNG in Asia years from now…. It was four bucks and change a few months back. I don’t know what it is exactly. It’s gone up a bit — probably six bucks and change. It costs us four bucks to get it out of the ground here in B.C. We can sell it for $2.50 at Chetwynd. It costs us about 11 bucks landed to actually sell it in China. How is it going to happen? How is it going to happen? What business case is it that a company is going to make a major investment here in British Columbia to lose money in every Btu of natural gas they produce?

Louisiana already has the infrastructure on the coast down there, and they already are taking up any supply gaps that existed. The Isthmus of Panama was recently widened. Russia has 20 times the total reserves of all of Canada, and it’s conventional gas, not shale gas, and they’ve signed contracts in and around Asia.

China is now a seller of contracts because they’re oversupplied. We’ve got Australia not bringing onshore stuff that was almost ready to go because there’s no demand, and we think that this is going to be the direction for prosperity in British Columbia. What makes me sad are the false promises that were made by this B.C. Liberal government before us to the people of British Columbia. False hope, undelivered hope. And now the continued pressure to try to deliver the impossible, while recognizing that so many other opportunities are there and we’re missing out on them.

I’d like to take us back to March 3 of 2015. March 3 of 2015 was when I sat across, again, saying — I’ve been saying this since 2012 — “LNG is not going to happen because the market is not there for it.”

On March 3, 2015, 2015, the then Minister of Natural Gas said: “You didn’t do your research. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I know the status of discussions. I know when the final investment decisions are coming. I know the way the companies are planning on making those. I will enjoy the meal to watch the member opposite eat his words in the next year or two.” This was 2015. “I will enjoy watching him eat his words as final investment decisions come that are coming down the pike and he sees the construction of LNG.”

A couple of months later he says: “I want to be invited to the dinner when he has to eat those words. It will happen in the not too distant future, I believe.”

It’s 2018, three years now, and still nothing. The fact that the members opposite think that they have any credibility on any aspect of the economy is mind-boggling, especially since…. What Finance Minister errs to the tune of $2.8 billion in a financial outlook? That’s reckless indifference to the actual economy, as opposed to fine stewardship of the economy. We know where that money came from: an out-of-control real estate sector and the construction industry that’s supporting it. But that’s not a healthy economy. That leads to a boom-and-bust economy, which is why it’s so critical that we diversify.

We look at the place of Terrace, British Columbia, for example. Rather than saying we’re going to try to squeeze LNG, like everyone else is doing, we could be asking: “What is it that you have in Terrace that no one else in the world can compete with?” Let me tell you what they have. They have the first three things we talked about: beautiful place, quality of education and access to resources. But they’re also on a railway line between Prince Rupert and Chicago — the gateway to Asia and the gateway to the eastern U.S.

Why is it we always focus on the raw and not the upgrade or manufacture? Terrace has an amazing opportunity, as a jurisdiction, to try to attract manufacturing there. Why did BMW go to Washington? Why did BMW build a factory in Washington to construct carbon fibre components for their i3 electric vehicles? Because they had access to clean, renewable energy, a stable workforce that they could attract and retain. Where was B.C. in these discussions? Chasing the natural gas unicorn or pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that kept moving. That should have been in Terrace.

Prince George. Let’s look at Prince George. What’s its strategic strength? It’s cold in Prince George right now, and they’ve got a ton of snow. I don’t know whether the member for Cariboo North was able to make it here today. But I know that the member…. We had some difficulty in a committee meeting, because he was snowed in up in the region. But that’s a strategic strength, because that means it’s cold. Why is it that data distribution centres are being built in the U.S.? They should be built in Prince George, because we know the single biggest cost to data distribution is cooling. It’s cooling, and when it’s a cooler place, it costs less. What’s the barrier? Not the speed of light, on which information is transferred. The barrier is lack of access to broadband redundancy.

In British Columbia, historically we’ve thought it’s industry’s role to build fibre and broadband capacity into communities. Now, it’s great that industry has made these investments. But it’s very difficult for a company, a strategic global company, to want to move into a community where its only access to broadband is owned through another company. That’s uncertainty. There’s a role for government, and we’re delighted to see this in the throne speech.

There’s a role for government to create highways — not only bridges and roads that we drive trucks and cars on but also highways for information that everyone has access to, and we’re delighted to see some of that appear in the throne speech.

One of the things that the throne speech mentioned with respect to the forest industry — again, very supportive of the issue with respect to upgrading and value added…. This is one of our key areas. I was troubled by some of the statements there about getting the most value out of affected timber, in cooperation with communities, industry and First Nations.

One has to be very, very careful about how you define value. Is it short-term or long-term? The quickest way to desertify, to make into a desert, large parts of the Cariboo region is to cut down all those burnt trees, which are important for rejuvenation of the next generation of forests.

Again, I would urge government to ensure that they consult not only with communities, industry and First Nations but with scientific experts who have an understanding about forest rejuvenation, particularly academics who have done studies on this and can show you examples of where, if you cut down all the burnt trees, all you leave behind is a forest because the nutrients that were there to actually create the next generation of growth are gone. I hope government’s careful with this as it moves forward.

I’m really excited, in the throne speech, not only about the mention of the innovation commissioner and the emerging economy task force, both of which we campaigned on, but about the opportunity this brings.

I’ve met with Alan Winter twice now, the innovation commissioner, and I can say that British Columbia is so absolutely lucky to have a man of his calibre, of his strengths, of his connections, to be our champion for the innovation sector in British Columbia. I look forward to him taking the programs that exist in Ottawa and matching them with B.C. programs to ensure efficiency and delivery of support to our innovation sector.

He’s concerned about the fact that what happens in British Columbia is companies grow and then move to the States. He’s concerned about creating the environment that will allow companies to grow and remain here in British Columbia.

We have examples of where we’ve tried this. We have a very troubling example right now playing out in B.C. with Bardel Entertainment, one of British Columbia’s top digital media companies, one of the world’s top — a company that set up an office in Kelowna, because of regional and distance tax credits, to try to bring the tech industry out of Vancouver into other parts of British Columbia. When all of a sudden, $5 million was pulled retroactively in the flick of a finger in an amendment that we didn’t debate.

When I tried to raise some issues here, I was told we have to pass it now because the Lieutenant-Governor is coming tomorrow. Five million dollars it cost that industry.

So I hope that we actually start to reflect upon the importance of this sector and the diversity of the sector across British Columbia, so that we nurture and then grow our innovation here in B.C. and don’t ship and export the talent elsewhere as well as the jobs elsewhere.

I’m delighted…. Again, this was a B.C. Liberal commitment in the election campaign, supported and adopted by both the B.C. NDP and by us. The creation of engineering programs across British Columbia.

We know that if you don’t train in an area, you often get sucked into the big metro areas of Vancouver and Victoria. The expansion of the engineering program in Prince George was a great thing for the diversity of our economy across this province. We’re thrilled to see that a total of 2,900 new tech-related spaces at colleges will be created as part of the throne speech over the years to come.

To the issue of reconciliation, the throne speech talks about this government beginning — across ministry framework — to meet our commitments to the United Nations declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples, the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Tsilhqot’in decision.

Obviously, we support this, and we support the government as we move to reconciliation in partnership with First Nations. But let me tell you, there is suspicion, because Indigenous communities — First Nations across our province — are sick and tired of words. I resonate with that. As a climate scientist who spent 25 years in the area, I am sick and tired of hearing governments promise, “We’ll reduce emissions by some amount sometime in the future,” and then not delivering or taking the steps to do it.

What matters to Indigenous communities is not the words. It’s the action. So let’s start to show real action sooner than later as we move towards, truly, truth and reconciliation in this province.

You know, the throne speech also talks about services to people under the areas of health care, education and so forth. Again, we’re excited about the focus in this throne speech away from corporate donors and large entities but towards people and small business. The focus on bringing together family doctors, nurse practitioners and nurses in a community-based approach is one that we think not only the medical community, but certainly our caucuses across this party, can come to agreement on.

I look at the Oceanside Health Centre in Parksville-Qualicum as a success story. The only problem with Oceanside Health Centre is not the way it’s set up, but the growing demand so that its wait times have increased and increased, because it’s a retirement community in there. But it shows a model of the future. But it requires us to think innovatively about how we have billing in the medical profession.

Doctors — there are shortages, no doubt.

But many of today’s doctors do not want to follow the path, particularly in light of the growing bureaucracy that exists in the health care system of having to run their own small business if they’re a family practitioner.

You know, any doctor who owns a family practice will spend, they’ll tell you, at least one day of the five in a week doing administration. Doctors want to be doctors. Young doctors today value the importance of quality in life, as the whole millennial generation do. So thinking about innovative ways of delivering health care through salaried positions, through allowing nurse practitioners to actually bill through the creation of teams, is something that we strongly support — and, in fact, campaigned on — and look forward to seeing the details of as this is fleshed out in the months and years ahead.

In terms of education, again, we see the commitment to fully fund class size and composition requirements: “more than 3,500 new teachers, librarians and counsellors are in B.C. schools, helping students learn in smaller classes with more individual attention.” We see this statement in the throne speech.

It’s quite unfortunate the way this has rolled out, as we know that we shouldn’t have actually ever been in this place to begin with, frankly. If we had not taken steps to take our teachers representatives to court multiple times, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, we wouldn’t be in a situation where suddenly we have to hire thousands of teachers in the space of a few months, creating chaos, frankly, in many, many school districts — and within the child care and early childhood education system, where schools are scrambling for spaces and trying to actually meet the legally required commitments.

You know, the throne speech talks about building schools. It talks about removing portables. It talks about seismic upgrades. That’s fine. But let me tell you, what matters in education is not the colour of the wallpaper or the size of the ceilings. What matters is the quality of the teacher and the resources that teacher has in the classroom, as well as the ability for a child to have access to the services they need when they need it.

What we need in British Columbia is enhanced resources in the classroom. Why is it that teachers across British Columbia…? Hon. Speaker, as a former teacher, this must resonate with you too. Why is it that teachers have to spend their own money to provide the actual tools that their children have to use in the classroom? We don’t ever account for that.

Hon. J. Sims: I want to know the answer to that.

A. Weaver: One of the…. I forget which riding you’re….

Hon. J. Sims: Surrey-Panorama.

A. Weaver: Thank you. The member for Surrey-Panorama…. There are all these ridings in Surrey, and they’re all close to each other. They keep changing, because the population’s growing so fast, and I forget who represents which riding.

The member — the minister — pointed out that she wants to know the answer to that. Why is it as a society we don’t recognize what northern European nations recognize, that the single most important profession in our society is education? It’s teachers, early childhood educators, child care providers. These are the people who train the next generation of citizenship. These are the people who create the innovators of tomorrow through providing them skills to actually learn and constructively think.

We seem to think, somehow, that’s it’s okay to pick on our teachers, and that culture needs to change. I’m hoping, with this new government and the direction we’re seeing, that we’ll actually do that. Not only building schools — that’s nice — but actually giving teachers the support they need in the classroom.

Frankly, one of the biggest costs to the education system, and one of the biggest costs to the society, is the fact that something towards 50 percent of teachers don’t continue on after five years, because they’re thrown into situations without the support they need, without the resources they need, to deliver the curriculum that B.C. has, and it’s just unwieldy.

So we have survival of the fittest. We’ll, some of that’s okay, but think of the investment that we have done as a society into training those teachers to get them to the position that they’re delivering in the classroom.

Look at any school district, at the number of people who are on long-term disability because of the unwieldy conditions that they have to work in — the lack of support they’re given. These are costs to society. These are costs that we pay for. If we think of prevention, creating the environment that allows teachers to thrive, we actually save money in the long term.

I’m excited about where we’re heading with teaching. I hope to continue to push the government to ensure that it’s not only about seismic upgrades, but it’s also about giving teachers the resources they need in the classroom to deliver the curriculum.

We’ve done remarkably well in the international PISA assessments, but we also have one of the highest rates of independent schools. Victoria used to have the highest rate of independent schools in the province. We’ve got to value our public education, because that’s our future. Let’s hope we continue down that area.

The throne speech talks about public safety. It talks about important areas in mental health. It talks about a lot of issues in that regard. Again, my concern with the mental health focus in the throne speech is not the importance of harm prevention, but the importance of where we need to invest is not only in stopping people from dying but also to ensure that they’re not there in the first place and that there’s a pathway to recovery at the end.

Anyone who has spoken to firefighters or first responders anywhere in British Columbia will know that it’s not an uncommon story for a first responder to resuscitate the same person multiple times in a day, whether that person be in an emergency room, be a firefighter or a paramedic. That’s a cost.

Providing more access to naloxone…. Sure, it will stop people from dying, but it actually doesn’t deal with the problem. Why is it that people are there in the first place? To what extent are we dealing with the social problems in this province as a direct consequence of our K-to-12 system not having the access and resources that teachers needed in the early, formative years of children to actually ensure that society didn’t have people aging out into these situations? To what extent would we have been avoiding this had we actually given the children the resources they need at the first onsets of diagnosis?

Good luck in British Columbia trying to get a child psychologist in a school district for your child. Those who have will go private, but those who are less fortunate have to wait and wait and wait. In many cases, early intervention would have led to savings in terms of outcomes down the road.

What about recovery? Housing first. It’s good to see the move towards talking about enhanced recovery facilities and also prevention. But it really needs to be our focus, and we continue to hope that government will move down in that regard.

To conclude, I’d like to deal with the issue of climate. In 2012, after being asked four times and finally agreeing to run as an MLA with the B.C. Green Party…. And let me tell you — and to my colleague Robert Stupka, who is running in Kelowna West— it is not the easiest pathway to the B.C. Legislature to run with the B.C. Green Party, particularly when no one had been elected before. You’ve got to work hard.

But when I ran in 2012, I ran because I had spent years in universities teaching. I spent years talking about climate. People and students would ask me: “What can I do?” I’d say: “There are three things you can do. Number one is: you can use your wallet. Each and every one of us has a wallet, and we send a signal to the market by the way we spend. If we buy more efficient products, more locally produced products, that’s the direction the market will head.

We only have to look at the organic food sections in grocery stores. That was a direct response to societal demand. When I was a kid, you would have gone bankrupt if you had an organic food department in your grocery store, because no one would’ve wanted to pay it. Now people are willing to pay a little bit more such that we’re at a stage where the price difference is negligible between organic or non-organic. That’s the power of the pocketbook.

There’s also the power of voting. We live in a democracy, and we have a system in place where we need to put this issue, if it’s important to you, front and centre in decision-making.

That is why, when I talk to students, I also put up the chart showing youth turnout in elections. Historically, in B.C., it was 30 to 40 percent of youth voting and 70 to 80 percent of seniors over the age of 65. Cynically, you can see why people campaign on reducing hip and knee replacement lineups, because you know you’re catering to an audience that will vote, and you can make a very real effect on their lives such that, three years later, you can point to what you’ve done and say: “Look. I listened to you. I reduced those lineups. Vote me back in.” And you know 70 to 80 percent of seniors will vote.

If you’re someone with a vision, like the former Premier of this province, Gordon Campbell, and you bring in place policy measures that you will never reap the benefits of yourself…. We know that socioeconomic inertia is such that the warming we have in store over the next couple of decades is a direct consequence of past decisions, and the decisions we make today will not actually affect those who make the decisions, but it’ll affect the next generation and after. When leaders like Gordon Campbell stand up and make that a priority, they need to be supported, and you need to vote people in who have that vision.

Invariably, these students…. Or in public lectures, people would say: “Oh, these politicians. They’re all the same. All they want to do is line their pockets. They’re in it for power. They’re all corrupt.” Then you can say, and I did: “Well, if you don’t like it, run yourself, because this is the system we’ve got.” It’s a lot better than anarchy, frankly, although some Libertarian candidates may disagree. It’s a lot better than anarchy, and I’d say: “If you don’t like it, run yourself. Find someone to run.”

You can only do that for a few years before you really take a look in the mirror and say: “Really? Am I offering this advice? I’m no different from anyone else. Do as I say and not as I do.” In running with the B.C. Greens — if anyone is interested, you can see it; we had a documentary filmmaker there to follow the campaign — I didn’t think I was going to win. But for me it was a matter of principle, because I could not look my students or, frankly, my family in the face and continue to say one thing and then do another.

When it came to see this throne speech, when it came to our discussions after the last election, you can rest assured that the reason why I was thrilled to actually agree to a confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. NDP, the reason why I am thrilled to see this in the throne speech, is that British Columbia is now repositioning itself to take advantage of not only the challenge but the opportunities that arise from this challenge as we move towards the 21st-century new economy, in terms of diversifying it and moving to the clean, low-carbon economy. But I’m the first to say — and my Indigenous friends have many centuries of this; I have a few decades — that I’m fed up with words. What I want to see is action.

I look forward to working with this government in the months and years ahead as we develop a pathway that actually recognizes that dealing with climate change is the greatest economic opportunity British Columbia has ever had. Because of our strategic strengths, with the most beautiful place in the world to live, one of the best education systems in the world and the ability to access boundless energy, timber, fibre and water, we can position ourselves to move ahead. So bring that in together with the innovation commission and the emerging economy task force. This is a really exciting time for British Columbia.

Now, we can be very cynical here — I get that there are political games, and people want to get in power — or we can recognize this is what it is. It’s a minority government where, I would say, every member in this place ran because they wanted to make British Columbia a better place for all British Columbians. We can actually do that.

My commitment, my caucus’s commitment to both sides of this House, is that we genuinely want to advance good public policy. We want to work with opposition and advance good amendments. We want to be given the courtesy of actually being able to have the time to reflect upon these amendments rather than having them spring upon us on the floor and then sending out tweets and press releases saying: “B.C. Greens Side With MLA.” That’s politics.

People in British Columbia are sick of that. They want us to work together. Whatever happens tonight in Kelowna, I look forward to working with the winner in Kelowna, whether that winner is Ben Stewart, Shelley Cook or Robert Stupka, or — wouldn’t it be interesting? —whether that self-described pit bull is the B.C. Conservative Party candidate in that riding. We’d like to work with all of them, and this place would be much the better for it if we do.

With that, hon. Speaker, I’m delighted to stand in support of the throne speech. I look forward to fulfilling the goals met in the throne speech, and I look forward to seeing, over the weeks ahead, the details emerge as we debate a budget and then the bills that accompany it.


Video of Speech


Reintroducing a bill to protect RDSPs and RESPs from creditors

Inspired by the discussion on Monday with Stephanie Cadieux, the MLA for Surrey South, during Private Members statements, I reintroduced a Private Members’ bill to protect Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs) and Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs) from creditors.

Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) were first introduced federally in 1957. Legislation enabling Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs) was subsequently brought forward in the late 1970’s thereby permitting seniors to withdraw their RRSP funds over time instead of all at once or through purchase of an annuity. Since that time, most provinces, including British Columbia, have recognized the importance of protecting RRSPs and RRIFs from creditors in the event of personal bankruptcy. They have passed legislation to protect RRSPs and RRIFs from being seized during bankruptcy. This provides a bankrupt individual a glimmer of hope that they will not be destitute in their old age. Here in British Columbia, such seizures are governed by the 1996 Court Order Enforcement Act.

In 2008 the Federal Government passed legislation to allow for the creation of Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs). The RDSP is a federal, tax-deferred, long-term savings plan for people with disabilities who want to save for the future. Unfortunately, under the Court Order Enforcement ActRDSPs  are not listed as a registered plan in BC’s legislation and are therefore not exempt from creditor protection. Therefore, should an individual with an RDSP go into debt, their savings in the RDSP will not be protected from seizure.

The province of Alberta has already taken such measures and amended their Civil Enforcement Act to include RDSPs under Section 92.1(I): Exemption of registered plans and registered disability savings plans. Legislation has also passed in Alberta protecting RESPs from creditors.

By ensuring the financial security and well-being of those living with disabilities, we are not only providing the individuals and their loved ones with a sense of security, we are also reducing the strain on social services that incurs when individuals are unable to care for themselves. By also including RESPs in section 71.3 of the Court Order Enforcement Act, we are protecting children who, through no fault of their own, might see their education investment seized by creditors.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my introduction, as well as the accompanying media release.


Text of Introduction


A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 2017. Inspired by a discussion on Monday, I’m reintroducing this for the second time.

Registered retirement savings plans are protected in this province from creditors in the case of personal bankruptcy. Protecting these funds provides a small safeguard that individuals undergoing bankruptcy will not be completely destitute in their old age. It’s good law that most provinces in Canada have adopted.

However, there is no protection for funds that are part of a registered education savings plan or a registered disability savings plan. These are important funds that need equal protection. Recognizing that a child should not have their education investment seized due to misfortune that befalls their parents, the Alberta government passed legislation a number of years ago protecting RESPs. It’s with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today.

This bill amends the Court Order Enforcement Act to ensure that RESPs and RDSPs are protected by law from creditors.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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


Video of Introduction



Media Release


Andrew Weaver introduces bill to protect RDSPs and RESPs from creditors
For immediate release
November 1, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, today introduced a bill to protect Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs) and Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs) from creditors. The bill, the Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 2017, was first introduced by Weaver in March 2016 and would provide RDSPs and RESPs with the same legal protection as Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) and Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIFs).

“A child should not have their education investment seized due to misfortune that befalls their parents,” said Weaver

“RDSPs and RESPs are important funds that British Columbians use to save for their futures. It is only fair that they have the same protection as RRSPs and RRIFs. This protection provides a glimmer of hope to those facing bankruptcy that they will not be destitute in their old age. There is no reason why British Columbians who are eligible for the disability tax credit and contribute it into RDSPs shouldn’t have that same glimmer of hope should they ever face a dire financial situation.

“I have been raising this issue in the house for three years now. Government has had plenty of time to consider it. It is time that government acts to finally give British Columbians’ RDSPs and RESPs the equal protection they deserve.”

-30-

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