At every level — undergraduate, master’s, and PhD, B.C. lags behind other provinces in terms of the number of engineers it graduates per capita.
Of the 9 provinces that offer engineering undergraduate degrees, BC ranks a dismal 8th. It ranks 7th in Masters and 6th in PhDs (see graphs below using data from Canadian Engineers for Tomorrow Share: Trends in Engineering Enrolment and Degrees Awarded 2011-2015).
Quebec and Ontario graduated 40% more undergraduate engineers per capita in 2015 than BC. They graduated 280% and 300%, respectively, more Masters Degrees per capita while Nova Scotia graduated 500% more per capita. And Quebec also graduates more than twice the number of PhDs per capita than BC.
In fact, BC is one of the lowest ranked jurisdictions in the world in terms of engineering PhDs awarded per capita. To compound this discrepancy further, BC has the strongest projected employment growth for engineers in Canada.
This is an unacceptable situation for a jurisdiction attempting to position itself as an innovator in the emerging 21st century economy. It’s particularly troubling as universities in BC are chomping at the bit to expand their offerings. For example, an exciting opportunity exists in Squamish to create a innovative centre for clean energy research, training and industry partnership. UNBC is also hoping to establish an engineering program to meet the demand for professional engineers in northern communities.
To pick up on this theme I asked the Minister of Advanced Education how her ministry was going to facilitate the development of these programs and increase the number of engineering graduates in British Columbia, and in particular, UNBC. As you will see from the video and text below, the BC Liberals were quite unruly during question period and had to be reprimanded by the Speaker a number of times.
A. Weaver: At every level — undergraduate, master’s, and PhD, B.C. lags behind other provinces in the number of engineers it graduates per capita. Of the nine provinces that offer engineering undergraduate degrees, B.C. ranks a dismal eighth. It ranks seventh in master’s and sixth in PhDs. Quebec and Ontario graduated 40 percent more undergraduate engineers per capita in 2015 than B.C. They graduated 280 and 300 percent, respectively, more master’s degrees than B.C., while Nova Scotia graduated 500 percent more master’s degrees than B.C. Quebec has more than twice the number of PhD graduates. In fact, B.C. is one of the lowest-ranked jurisdictions in the world in terms of engineering PhDs per capita.
To compound this discrepancy further, B.C. has the strongest projected growth, for engineers in Canada. There are post-secondary institutions eager to fill the need. UNBC has been trying to get an undergraduate engineering program…
Mr. Speaker: Member, your question.
A. Weaver: …for years. The engineering department at UBC wants to build a tech campus in Squamish.
To the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training, how is her ministry going to facilitate the development of these programs and increase the number of engineering grads in British Columbia?
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Mark: Sorry, what was that?
Hon. M. Mark: Yeah, exactly. It’s not you asking the question. I’m the one answering the question, through the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Mark: No, it’s okay. I’m used to this. I’m used to this circus on the other side. It has only been a week, but it’s been fun.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for the question.
Hon. M. Mark: Well, of course I do. I like to stand in this House as an advocate for post-secondary education. For the last 16 years…. In the first 21 days on the job, I had a chance to travel the province and hear from students and get to see STEM in action — science, technology, engineering and math.
We’re going to do something about this on this side of the House to send a message to students that we’re on their side, that we’re going to invest in their education. We’re going to invest in the tech sector.
We know that the tech sector is a $26 billion industry. Our friends on the other side of the House remind us that we’re not interested in jobs, but we need to make sure that we’re training people up. We’re going to make sure that those 100,000 people that are contributing to the economy are trained up in engineering. So we’re going to increase co-op placements. We’re going to increase apprenticeship placements. We’re going to make sure that the trade seats are relevant all across the province, not just select regions in the province.
I look forward to working with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on increasing the seats in engineering in B.C.
A. Weaver: If ever there was any doubt why this boisterous bunch needed to be put in a time-out, today is the justification for that.
A. Weaver: In mathematics, hon. Speaker, “QED” is often used to demonstrate exactly what I was just saying.
UNBC has proven that if we train people in the north, they stay in the north. In fact, more than half of their 13,000 alumni live in the north, contributing to the society, culture and employment base. Engineering should be offered at UNBC. It would add to those figures.
I recognize that 16 years of rule by the Luddites opposite, who do not understand the importance of the new economy, abandoned rural B.C. and left them on the hook. They abandoned development in rural B.C….
Mr. Speaker: Member, please be seated for a moment.
Members, we are reminded that when someone is speaking, we will listen with good manners.
A. Weaver: My question to the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training is: what is your ministry doing to ensure vibrant educational opportunities are available across all disciplines in our northern communities, in order to allow these communities to take advantage of the emerging opportunities in the 21st century economy that have been left out because of 16 years of incompetent rule by the B.C. Liberals?
Hon. M. Mark: I’m so pleased to hear a question about post-secondary advocacy in this House, because it’s about time that we have a government that’s going to advocate for the students all across British Columbia and make sure that we have those seats available. It is unacceptable that that government brought us to eighth place, in this province….
Hon. M. Mark: Pardon me? It’s exciting in here. I love the excitement. It’s about time that people are standing up for post-secondary education instead of standing in the way.
We’re going to get to increasing those seats across B.C., up in UNBC. We’re going to make sure that we’re investing in jobs in the 21st century. We’re going to make sure that we’re not standing the way by increasing debt and tripling tuition, like what was done under the last government in 16 years.
We are going to stand beside the students in British Columbia, and we made those measures, in the first 60 days of forming government, by reducing student debt, by making sure that we increase seats for students in the trade sector and the engineering sectors. We’re standing beside students in this province, and we’re sending a message that we are going to invest in them, not stand in their way.
Today was an historic day for British Columbia’s democracy. The unparalleled influence of corporate and union donations, that has become a defining feature of what is broken in BC politics, is coming to an end with the introduction of Bill 3 – Election Amendment Act, 2017.
The timing of this bill is particularly historic for the BC Greens as this month also marks one year since we banned corporate and union donations to our own party.
This bill is also historic for another reason: it is the first bill to be introduced that is a foundational piece of our historic Confidence and Supply Agreement. It is a product of good faith and no surprises consultations with the government.
The consultations on this bill began months ago, when we were at the negotiating table with the BC NDP following the results of the May 9 election, and have been ongoing since then as we have worked out the details. Its introduction demonstrates the opportunity we have to change the way politics is done in this province – to put partisan politics aside and put the interests of people first as two parties work together to develop groundbreaking legislation.
Our top priorities were to ensure that this bill:
In the days ahead, our caucus will be reviewing the bill in great detail to ensure that it is:
We look forward to engaging with our colleagues on both sides of the house in good faith and no surprises to ensure that this legislation adequately addresses the issues with the current system.
Below is the media release that we issued today.
B.C. Green caucus statement on government’s introduction of campaign finance bill
For immediate release
September 18, 2017
VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, and Adam Olsen, B.C. Green caucus spokesperson for democratic reform, responded to the introduction of the Elections Amendment Act 2017. An agreement to reform B.C.’s electoral finance laws was a flagship component of the Confidence and Supply Agreement signed between Weaver and Premier Horgan and all members of their caucuses.
“This is a historic day for our province’s democracy,” Weaver said.
“Big money has been the defining feature of what is broken in B.C. politics. Now, one year after B.C. Greens banned corporate and union donations to our own party, we will ban it province-wide once and for all. I am delighted that 2017 will go down in history as the last big money election in B.C.”
“The undue influence of special interests through our province’s lax campaign finance laws has led to cynicism and to people feeling like their voices are not heard,” Olsen continued.
“British Columbians should be able to trust their government to put them – not special interests – first. This legislation is a big step towards restoring that trust.
“In our consultations leading up to the introduction of this legislation, our caucus’ core goals were to ban on corporate and union donations, to ensure B.C. is among the lowest individual contribution limits in the country and that this happened immediately as one of the first bills tabled in the legislature.
“I thank Mr. Eby and his office for their diligent work bringing this bill forward so early in the session. In the days and weeks ahead, we will work with the government to ensure that this legislation is comprehensive and adequately addresses the issues with the current system.”
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | email@example.com
Today in the legislature I rose to speak in support of the BC NDP budget that was tabled earlier this week. As we have yet to be given official party status (I understand legislation is forthcoming imminently), I only had 1/2 hour to respond. Once we receive official party status, as a designated speaker I would have had a full two hours.
As you can see from my speech below, I ran out of time. I could have taken up the full two hours as there was so much more I wanted to discuss about this historic budget issued by the NDP minority government.
Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to this budget, Budget 2017. Before I start, please let me acknowledge the years of service that the former Premier, Christy Clark, gave to the Legislature. It is not without great personal sacrifice that someone serves as Premier of our province, and for that, I would suggest all British Columbia should be thankful and honoured that she served in such a way.
Now, I recognize that I’m sitting on the other side of this Legislature here, but I wish the Speaker to know that I do remain in opposition, although we have come to an agreement, through the confidence and supply agreement, with the B.C. NDP to support a B.C. NDP–led minority government. Please let me offer some highlights as to how we got there and why I’m speaking in strong support of this particular budget.
In the last election, the B.C. Green Party ran by offering British Columbians a vision on which to build a growing economy in the 21st century. We ran on ensuring that the health and well-being of British Columbians was put first and foremost in decision-making. We ran on building a sustainable economy, and we ran on strengthening trust in the government. In essence, we ran on the slogan of “Change you can count on,” and I would argue it’s turned into change you can count on for a better B.C.
The platform we presented this past spring articulated our philosophy, our vision and the actions that we believed could enrich the lives of all British Columbians. We were enthusiastic about a innovative and sustainable private sector, and we know that the health and well-being of British Columbians is inextricably linked to the economy. We believe that government should ensure that people are not just a factor of production working for the economy, but rather that the economy is working for people. We recognize that life is getting harder for many British Columbians, and we believe there is another way forward — one where people enjoy economic security in the new and emerging gig economy, one where our province’s resources are managed sustainably and one where equity is a fundamental value of government that operates in the best interests of this generation and future generations.
The B.C. Green platform set out a bold plan to achieve this vision. It was grounded in economic security and sustainability in the full and truest sense, we would argue. It provided clear steps, based on evidence, to move us towards greater well-being for all British Columbians.
If we’re going to make B.C. a more prosperous place for all people, not just those who already it is prosperous for but all people, we need to eliminate the fear of income insecurity, which has debilitating impacts on people’s health and well-being. We need to take our role as stewards of the environment seriously. We need to reset the relationship between people and government and communities and government. And we need to embrace the new economy and take measures to ensure that we all share in the benefits and that no one is left behind.
This is what we ran on, but we didn’t form a majority government. The B.C. Liberals ran on a different platform. They did not form a majority government. The B.C. NDP ran on something different. They did not receive a majority government.
All parties presented different ideas that resonated with some people — not all people but some people — and some communities — not all communities but some communities. None of us, clearly, had the right mixture to encapture a majority of British Columbians. That was indicated in the election results.
Instead, we have before us a minority government, one that I truly believe has the potential to be far more than the sum of its parts if parties choose to work together. We have something to offer on behalf of all British Columbians that voted for each of our visions for this province. We have a lot of shared priorities, and as the throne speech that was produced in the summer shows, there’s a lot of commonality in these shared priorities.
As we saw today through the introduction of legislation in a private member’s motion, we see an emergence and an agreement in the general principles of eliminating big money in B.C. politics. I think there are lots of commonalities there that we can build upon.
No one party will have all the solutions, but together we might be able to represent our different constituencies and work toward good public policy if we truly want to put good public policies front and centre in our decision-making instead of partisanship.
I think this budget is actually a great example of starting that in the right direction. It includes initiatives from all three parties. It was built fundamentally on the foundation of the B.C. Liberals February budget, and it retains a number of the very positive aspects of that February budget, such as the $20 million in funding the Liberals had announced in February for 4,100 new childcare spaces. It also includes important NDP priorities, like the $291 million investment to build, and the $170 million additional investment to operate, 2,000 new modular housing units for the homeless. This is a good initiative.
It features, also, some B.C. Green–led initiatives, like the importance of the emerging economy, through the creation of an emerging economy task force and an innovation commission, and to recognition that it’s important to get politics out of minimum-wage price-setting and to create a fair wage commission, much akin to what exists in Australia, to make recommendations to government on the path towards setting minimum wage. So $15 by 2021 was the B.C. NDP platform. The B.C. Green platform was to actually put it to the fair wage commission and, also, to actually move towards the concept of basic income.
What we have in this confidence and supply agreement is a recognition that for the B.C. NDP, $15is an important number. I understand that. We understand that. But why by 2021? Why not perhaps consider other alternatives?
Why would, perhaps, an independent commission not explore options after engagement with stakeholders about, perhaps, a system whereby the minimum wage might actually be different in Metro Vancouver relative to, say, the region of Port Hardy? Just making two states up, but one might be more appropriate in Penticton — to have a minimum wage that’s slightly different from the minimum wage in Burnaby. This is something that we should let a fair wage commission explore, to make recommendations to government, the ultimate decision-maker.
I think this is a bold step forward that only would happen as we brought together and came together to share ideas. Working with the B.C. NDP over the past several months has been a meeting of these ideas, I would argue, and going forward, I hope that the B.C. Liberals also share this importance, too, particularly in light of the fact….
I’ll come to that. I see the member for Prince George–Valemount look at me oddly. I would like to recognize that this did work as well. The Prince George–Valemount member knows full well that I thoroughly respected working with her, and continue to do so, on issues there. I think we have a lot of commonalities here.
But what we have to do…. We have an election coming up — sorry, not an election, a referendum. With respect to my colleagues on this side of the House, that was clearly a slip.
A. Weaver: Well, we do have a by-election coming up. The members opposite got very, very excited, hon. Speaker, over that slip-up.
We have a referendum coming up on the issue of proportional representation. Now, I understand that there’s a diversity in views in this House. There’s a diversity of views in the general public. But wouldn’t it be fascinating to show this province that a minority government can work by building on the good ideas from all political parties in the lead-up to a referendum on proportional representation?
I’d like to look a little bit further at some of the budget highlights, just to bring a focus on some specifics that I would like to applaud and some that I will say we don’t agree with. The budget provisions for education, child care, affordable housing and essential services are long overdue.
Now, I recognize, in speaking with members opposite and in listening to the throne speech, that the B.C. Liberal caucus heard that message loud and clear and came to us in the summer with the revised version of what we had expected to hear in a throne speech. They heard that from the people of British Columbia, particularly the people of the Metro Vancouver region, which is hurting because of the affordability issue. Those on the government side have also heard that and need to pay heed to the concerns of those in Metro Vancouver suffering under the issue of affordability.
I’m also delighted to see the implementation of a pathway towards the elimination of MSP. This has been an initiative we’ve been championing in the B.C. Green caucus — well, the caucus was really small up until now — for the last number of years. The first approach, using the B.C. Liberal budget of February, was to cut them by half this year. Something we can all get behind. It was in the B.C. Liberal budget. The B.C. NDP have agreed to it. We support it.
If we believe that we want to work on our commonalities and build upon that which we agree upon, the disagreements, of which there are some, are considered minor. I’ll continue with this to show how the CAS agreement came to be.
I’ll be straight up honest. After four years in opposition…. It was tough times going there, with the rest of the opposition. After an election campaign that I would describe as quite ugly and personal to me by the government now, I didn’t think it would be very easy for me to see a way that we could come together. I did not see that, but since the face-to-face meetings with the Finance Minister and the Premier, I’ve seen just how much we share in terms of our commonality, our vision and how we want to put good public policy and people first.
I will say that the working relationship that the small B.C. Green caucus has with the existing government has been nothing short of exceptional. For that, we are very, very grateful.
I’d like to go on and talk about a few more budget highlights that I think are important. I am a big fan of living within your means. I applaud the B.C. Liberals’ fiscal prudence in terms of producing balanced budgets. Now, I recognize that there’s some question as to how the budget was balanced in terms of priorities being made — increasing rate hikes versus personal tax rates, for example. But the fiscal prudence that was brought to British Columbia is something that I’m hoping — and we see in this budget — will be preserved under the present government, where a surplus budget to the tune of $246 million is projected for March 31, 2018, with a $300 million contingency built in as well.
The budget also plans to increase wealthy corporations and polluters, while providing more money for homelessness, rental housing and the overdose crisis. Now, I recognize the manifesto from the member for Chilliwack-Kent, the manifesto for the new leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, actually asks about a pathway to eliminate corporate income taxes. Frankly, I think this neo-liberal approach — if tax, then bad — has had its day. We saw that federally, where the federal Liberals won a strong majority, which no one expected, because they recognized that this neo-liberal approach — if corporation, then right; if tax, then wrong — has actually led to an income disparity between those who have and those who haven’t, which is not a healthy situation for any society to be in.
We see in this budget steps taken to start to mitigate that. Moving from 11 to 12 percent in a corporate income tax rate is not something that’s going to create a big upset in corporate Canada. We heard some threats and fearmongering on the opposite side. I know many, many CEOs in many corporations in Canada. To be quite frank, we’re one of the lowest — 11 to 12 percent. They want to pay their share. If they pay their share…. They’re concerned that government uses their money in a manner that’s fiscally prudent. They want to have a stable environment. It’s not healthy for anybody when you have a homeless situation in Vancouver. It’s not helpful for anyone when there’s ongoing tension between Indigenous rights and title, local communities and corporations. Nothing gets done.
It’s critical that you start to value people, build from the bottom up to develop a society that, actually, corporations want to be part of, and we see that emerging in this budget through the creation of things like the innovation commission, the emerging economy task force and so forth.
You know, one of the things in the budget that we are grateful to see is the commitment to develop a pilot project on basic income. This is critical as we move towards the gig economy, where the “One job, one life” idea of yesteryear becomes more and more precarious. People have more and more jobs in their lifetime with gaps in between, and the concept of basic income — one which would eliminate student debt, for example, one which eliminates the need for some programs down the road — is one that was experimented on in Dauphin, Manitoba in the 1970s and one which was shown to eliminate poverty in Dauphin, Manitoba.
So we look to the poverty reduction plan being put forward during the coming months as a means and ways of identifying a pathway to the implementation of a basic income pilot project, and that’s a really exciting opportunity in British Columbia.
To the child care plan. The B.C. NDP campaigned on the $10-a-day child care plan. We campaigned on a zero-dollar-a day child care plan, with a change in the taxation system, together with 25 hours of early childhood education, which we know is the single most important in terms of dollar-per-result investment that you can make in a society for education — in those critical years, where the payback is being shown through research to be profound.
That doesn’t mean that these disagreements between the two platforms are anything other than semantics. Why $10 a day? Well, it was because an advocacy group that spent a lot of time doing a lot of research came up with a plan of $10 a day. But you could make…. The number 10 — there’s nothing wedded to it. Zero a day, $10 a day, $15 a day. Why not means-test it? Would the CEO of a major corporation earning half a million dollars a year really need access to a child care system that’s free? I think their ability to pay should predetermine the amount that they actually get.
In our system, what we had approached is we had ensured that there was going to be no…. Money was not a barrier to access. Right now, if you access child care, you pay up front, and at the end of the year you file your income tax return and you get a child care tax credit. That’s great. But that means that you have to still pay up front, and for those struggling with affordability, that ability to pay up front is a barrier, which is why what we suggested is that you wouldn’t pay up front. It would be zero up front. And at the end of the year, if you so choose to take advantage of this universal daycare program and you earned over $80,000 a year, it would be viewed as a taxable benefit. So if you could pay, you would pay, as opposed to not being able to access the system because of your inability to make your monthly rent.
Now, the economists involved in the development of the $10-a-day child care plan told us our plan was better. So why wouldn’t we actually want to sit and negotiate and talk with stakeholders and, in particular, the civil service, the civil service that this government has promised to reinvigorate, to listen to all of the ideas that are brought to the table to ensure that we build upon our shared values of the importance of universal daycare, universal child care, and that we find the most efficient, effective ways of doing that, where those who advocated on behalf of the $10-a-day program have their voice? But they’re not the only voice at the table. There are other voices as well. And I’m excited that this will move forward.
As we move into these discussions, we know that the B.C. NDP will bring their $10-a-day child care program to the table. We’ll bring our refined zero dollars to the table. And we’ll discuss, hopefully with input from B.C. Liberals as well, as to how we can make this right, because we have the same shared value.
That’s how good public policy is formulated. Good public policy is not taken from third-party advocacy groups and determined to be the policy. It’s by using and engaging and tasking the civil service to reflect upon the complex issues that are involved in the development of good public policy and consulting with stakeholders and using their input to provide evidence and support for their development.
We see, today, a good example in question period, where I pointed out that the minister now walking in was quite firm in electioneering that we would do this right away. But it’s much more complex than that, because there are jurisdictional issues. There are legal issues. There are time frame issues. It’s a lot more difficult to implement good public policy if you’ve promised the world out here. When you get in, it’s pretty important that you get it right.
That’s what we see our role here is, as a minority government. It’s that we have shared values that will ensure that the fundamental principles will be supported, but we’re there as a check, to work together to ensure that other views also get listened to. Frankly, it’s working very well so far.
Here’s an example. One, it’s not “no surprises”, but…. We have in the agreement “no surprises” and best practices. If there was a surprise — it wasn’t really a surprise — it was a pleasant one.
In our election campaign, we campaigned on injecting $4 billion over four years into the public education system to ensure that those children in their early years had accesses to the services that they require in those critical formative years, those years where, over the last 16 years, cuts have been targeted — through the child psychologists, through the speech pathologists, for the in-class help for those children with special or alternate needs. That’s where the cuts have been.
We know that if we invest — what’s important is, I’m reiterating the word “invest” — in the support for our children in these critical years, we save. We get a return. We get a return when they age out and enter society, because we’re not having to pay for the social systems, the social crises, the things that we’re dealing with now because we provided them services when they were young. It’s an investment with a rate of return that is difficult to quantify in me talking right now, but it is one that we know pays off based on cumulative evidence over many, many years.
Why I was pleased was that I saw, in the B.C. NDP platform, they had a little bit… They had quite a lot, actually, for rebuilding schools but very little, apart from adult basic education — something like $30 million for increased funding for the K to 12 system — in the classroom, apart from that which was prescribed by the Supreme Court, which they agreed to implement, as, of course, we did.
To see this injection of new money into the education system precisely in the years when it’s needed is absolutely refreshing, in my view, and long overdue. We’re so grateful to see that there.
Let’s take a look. It was $681 million, actually. In fact, $521 million of that — $521 million — was to provide for improved classroom supports for children, in addition to the capital funding which was there.
A. Weaver: The former Minister of Education claims that that was in his budget — that $681 million.
A. Weaver: If it was in your budget, I would like to give you credit for that, too, and I’d like to give the NDP credit for actually continuing forward with that. Our top priority has always been public education.
A. Weaver: They’re high-fiving across the floor. Isn’t this a wonderful Legislature that we have here today?
A. Weaver: We’re not in a coalition.
Let’s come to the fentanyl crisis. Now, the fentanyl crisis is another example of where we support the funding going in — $322 million dedicated to a comprehensive response, $265 million for the Ministry of Health, $32 million to increase police resources and address pressures at the B.C. Coroners Service and $25 million to establish a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.
Some of this, I recognize, was in the existing budget, but not the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions until we had the throne speech in the summer, where things changed with the B.C. Liberals. You know, dealing with the fentanyl crisis and this cost pressure here is something we’d like to see go to zero dollars.
The reason why, over what we’re doing, is that we’re dealing with a crisis management point of view, but we haven’t been thinking over recent years about two aspects of mental health and addictions. One is the issue of prevention, and two, is the issue of recovery. And within our negotiations and discussions, it was so very refreshing to see shared values and shared interest in actually supporting investment in prevention and recovery, with the hope that the investment in harm reduction is not needed down the road.
We’re dealing with harm reduction. I would argue we’re dealing with harm reduction costs today because of cuts to our K-to-12 system yesterday, where children did not have the resources they needed at critical junctures. Cuts to our social services and MCFD, because the children did not have the resources they needed when they were young. Cuts to first responders and others. Cuts to prevention. Cuts to recovery programs.
These cuts have created a crisis on our streets, which we’re now paying for in other means. So my dream would be to see this budget item, this budget item of $322 million through a comprehensive response, go to zero over the course of four years. Because we don’t want to be responding to a crisis. We want to be preventing it in the first place. And we want those in the crisis now to have a pathway to get out of that crisis. And for that, I’m quite pleased with the discussions and the direction that this government is heading.
Housing. Again, another good example: $208 million over four years; 1,700 units of affordable rental housing; 291 over two years…. And over $170 million to operate the 2,000 lodging or housing units.
More importantly — well, maybe not more importantly. Also importantly, is the $7 million for the residential tenancy branch to deal with the backlog of issues that are arising in that office. I don’t know how many constituents have come to my office with complaint after complaint after complaint about issues arising from either access to the residential tenancy branch or unfair decisions in terms of landlords who rent on yearly contracts and have outrageous requirements for taking those forward. This is another good investment that we strongly support.
As I said here, one of our goals, we believe, is coming back to the issue that nobody won a majority government. Therefore, we must we must build upon our shared values to find commonalities to move forward.
I was pleased not to see the $400 per renter investment. And why I’d say that is there’s a shared value here. We share the values with government about the importance of affordability for renting. We would agree on an investment of $200 million, which is about what it would cost to do that. But I would argue, and the B.C. Green caucus would argue, that perhaps that is not the most effective way of dealing with the problem.
The problem is affordability. A $200 million distribution of cash with a bureaucratic overhead to administrate it, I would argue, is not effective. It’s akin to printing money, to the Bank of Canada saying: “We need people to have more money, so let’s print some more money.” The immediate response in economic terms is inflationary pressure, which causes inflation to go up, so you need to print more money. It’s not too dissimilar from what would happen by just giving out money for rent. As landlords suddenly realize that renters have more access to capital to pay the rent….In a zero percent rental rate market, all that happens is rents go up another $400.
So we have to be very, very careful how we incentivize money distribution that way.
I was disappointed to not see the elimination of the encouragement that the B.C. Liberals gave for people to irresponsibly take on more debt than they were actually able to fund, through this outrageous loan program that allowed for a zero percent interest loan to encourage people to burden themselves with more debt than they could afford. But hopefully, down the road this may or may not be removed.
Increasing the individual income tax rate for those earning $150,000, from 16.8 percent 14.7 percent, while bemoaned by those opposite and while certainly not consistent with the manifesto, the 65 items in the manifesto, from the member from Chilliwack Kent for the next Liberal leader, it’s exactly what people want to pay.
I have talked to person after person after person in my riding and across British Columbia. British Columbians don’t mind paying taxes.
The neoliberal view of “no taxes is good” is dated. They want to ensure that government uses their money wisely, which is why I found it very, very, very rich for this government to talk about their economic stewardship.
They’ve been very, very good at branding the B.C. NDP as irresponsible fiscal managers. They’ve been saying the same thing, and people on the street think this. But when you look a little more carefully at their fiscal management, you’ve got to ask a few pointed questions.
Site C dam. Why are you using taxpayer money to subsidize industry? Their view of good economic growth is using taxpayer money to subsidize corporate ventures. How is that free market? That’s picking winners and losers in the market.
Picking winners and losers — they picked the LNG. What a big mistake that was: 100,000 jobs, $1 trillion increase to GDP, $100 billion prosperity fund. That’s the winner they picked, and they went all in to do it. People were encouraged to build hotels in Terrace that are empty. They were encouraged to renovate their homes in Kitimat because of this influx of new employees.
With that, hon. Speaker, I do thank you. The only thing I wish in conclusion is that we had official party status already, because I could have talked for at least another hour and a half on this.
Last week I sent a letter to B.C.’s Minister of Agriculture seeking clarity as to what the B.C. government is planning to do to promote and facilitate the transition from ocean based, open net fish farms to land based closed containment systems. Today, I followed up with her in Question Period. As you will see from the exchange reproduced below, I was very pleased with the thoughtful answers provided by Minister Popham.
Fish farms have long been contentious on the B.C. coast due to concerns about sea lice, disease, escaped non-native species, and the impact these contaminants are having on wild stocks – many of which are already significantly depleted. Tensions between some First Nations and operating farms have escalated in the last few weeks following a salmon spill near the San Juan Islands. While action on this file is long overdue, a responsible and effective move to protect our wild salmon stocks now seems especially urgent.
The B.C. Green caucus position on fish farms has always been very clear. We need to get fish farms out of the migratory paths of wild salmon. And, at the same time, the provincial government needs to promote the establishment of closed-containment systems on land.
Prior to the last election, the B.C. NDP were also very clear about their commitment to shut down open-net farms and move to closed containment, land-based fish farms. They promised to implement the recommendations of the Cohen Commission as well. This past April, NDP North Island MLA Claire Trevena – now the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure – told a gathering of indigenous leaders in Alert Bay that if elected, her party would remove fish farms from coastal waters. “We will remove fish farms, we are committed to that and we can actually form government to make this happen and make sure that these territories and the North island are clear of fish farms”
“It can happen here,” she said of a shift to land-based fish farming. “We will make sure it does.”
These are strong words. Unfortunately, jurisdictional divisions threaten to make this far easier said than done. The federal Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) department is responsible for the regulation of most aspects of the aquaculture industry in B.C. The government of Canada issues licences for marine finfish, shellfish and freshwater (or land-based) operations. Licences stipulate the volume and species that may be produced at a site and outline requirements for fish health, sea lice levels, fish containment and waste control.
To complete that structure, the province of B.C. issues tenures where operations take place in either the marine or freshwater environment, licenses marine plant cultivation, and manages business aspects of aquaculture such as work place health and safety.
So, the province only has jurisdiction over one piece of the fish farm regulatory puzzle, but it is still an important one and there is still a lot of room for progress to be made. In collaboration with First Nations and the federal government the province can take it even further. The B.C. Green caucus remains committed to advancing this issue, and making sure the NDP government does the same.
The leading closed-containment Atlantic salmon company in Canada is Kuterra, based in Port McNeill and owned by the Namgis First Nation. Kuteraa received part of its funding from Tides Canada on the basis that it provide open access to its knowledge and since become an industry leader.
To their credit, the ocean based B.C. fish farming industry has taken measures to improve security and there have been very few escapes over the past five years. The last major escape of Atlantic salmon from a B.C. operation was in 2008 and the most recent significant fish spill was in 2014 when more than 13,000 farmed rainbow trout escaped from an operation at Brettell Point, near Powell River. This summer’s incident in U.S. waters, however, highlights the continued risk of farming Atlantic salmon in open net pens. Escaped salmon increase the risk of spreading disease to wild stocks, and heighten competition with wild Pacific salmon, which are endangered in many B.C. watersheds. It is time for governments to help the fish farming industry transition from open-net farms to closed containment land based facilities. It is time to prioritize the protection of wild salmon.
In May, 2015, I was afforded the honour of introducing a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. I also introduced a second petition signed by more than 100 business organizations across the province who supported the individuals who signed the larger petition. The business organizations argued that they are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild pacific salmon.
Below I reproduce the exchange I had with Minister Popham as well as the accompanying media release
A. Weaver: The 2017 B.C. election platform states this.
“We will ensure that the salmon farming industry does not endanger wild salmon by implementing the recommendations of the Cohen Commission, keeping farmed sites out of the important salmon migration routes and supporting research and transparent monitoring to minimize the risk of disease transfer from captive to wild fish.“
In addition, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure promised First Nation leaders, in Alert Bay on April 23 of 2017:
“We will remove fish farms, we are committed to that, and we can actually form government to make this happen and make sure that these territories and the north Island are clear of fish farms.“
She did so, with respect, as a means or way of convincing First Nation leaders not to vote for the B.C. Green Party.
My question to the Minister of Agriculture is this: what is the government’s plan now to implement the recommendations of the Cohen commission and assist in the transition from ocean-based fish farms to land-based closed-containment systems?
Mr. Speaker: If it was always that friendly.
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for the question. I appreciate it, and I want to assure the member and the people of British Columbia that our government is deeply committed to protecting B.C.’s wild salmon. It’s essential to our economy, it’s essential to our province, and it’s essential to our B.C. First Nations.
The Cohen commission recommendations are something that we did commit to in our platform, and we are absolutely committed to fulfilling those recommendations. There are federal recommendations and there is B.C.’s portion of those recommendations, and we are committing to do that.
Also, I’m sure the member probably knows that, but I did want to point out that in 2010 there was a Hinkson decision which moved the responsibility for fish health and licensing of fish farms to the federal government. The provincial government has the responsibility for tenures. It’s important to know that at this time, as we’re figuring out where we go next, there are no tenures being approved and no renewal of tenures being approved.
A. Weaver: First off, I do wish to thank the official opposition for their support in the question. I’m sure they thought I was going to offer a softball, but this is a very serious question that we would like to actually get details on.
I’d like to acknowledge that this is a very complex multi-jurisdictional issue, but let me be very clear. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure was forthright and clear that her government was going to remove fish farms from the migratory tracks of sockeye salmon — period. She said that to First Nation leaders in the north Island and convinced them not to vote for the B.C. Green Party because of that.
Now, my question, again to the Minister of Agriculture, is this. Does she intend, in her mandate, to end the use of open-net fish farms along the migratory passage of sockeye system, as promised to British Columbians by the now Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure?
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall…. The friendliness is wonderful, but we shall hear the minister’s response.
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you again for your question. I’m not sure if the member knows, but I am waiting for the recommendations coming from a report from the Minister of Agriculture’s advisory council on finfish aquaculture, which has been looking at the issue. I expect that report to be coming forward with recommendations at the end of this year. While I wait for those recommendations, I have already been on the ground, meeting with stakeholders. I’ve met with First Nations, the industry.
I’ve also sat down with the Minister of Fisheries, Minister LeBlanc from the federal government, and invited him to come sit at the table with us, because I think it’s going to take the provincial government, the federal government, First Nations and industry to sit together as we move forward and figure out the recommendations and how to implement them.
Weaver seeks action from government to end ocean based fish farming
For immediate release
September 13, 2017
VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green caucus, is seeking leadership from the government to protect B.C.’s wild salmon stocks. Weaver questioned Minister of Agriculture during question period, after having sent a letter to the Minister last week.
“Fish farms have long been contentious on the B.C. coast due to concerns about sea lice, disease, escaped non-native species, and the impact these contaminants are having on wild stocks – many of which are already significantly depleted,” Weaver said.
“In April, NDP North Island MLA Claire Travena, now Minister of Transportation, promised that her party would remove fish farms from coastal waters.
“Last week I sent a letter to Minister of Agriculture Lana Popham seeking clarity on when and how the government intends to keep its commitment on this promise. Today in question period, I asked Minister Popham whether her government still intends to end the use of open net fish farms along the migratory paths of wild salmon during this government’s mandate.”
In her response, Minister Popham referenced plans to work with federal and First Nations governments and an upcoming report.
“While this is no doubt a complex multi-jurisdictional issue, the provincial government must play a leading role. The province needs to actively advocate for British Columbian values. They must push the federal government to adopt policies that will protect the wild salmon that are foundational to our coastal communities and ecosystems. I will continue to work with governments and stakeholders to keep this issue a priority.”
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | firstname.lastname@example.org
Today in the Legislature Andrew Wilkinson, the MLA for Vancouver Quilchena, reintroduced the Elections Amendment Act that the BC Liberals had initially introduced this past summer. The bill did not pass First Reading in the summer as the then government had yet to test confidence. Today the bill passed First Reading and so will be printed shortly.
The BC NDP promised a bill on electoral finance reform that would ban big money this session. It’s exciting that all parties are in agreement. It looks like the banning of big money in BC Politics is imminent.
Below is the media statement that I released to day on the new Private Member’s bill.
Weaver statement on B.C. Liberals’ reintroduction of the Elections Amendment Act
For immediate release
September 13, 2017
VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green caucus, responded today to the reintroduction of the Elections Amendment Act by B.C. Liberal MLA Andrew Wilkinson. Wilkinson first introduced the bill, aimed at B.C.’s campaign finance laws, in June prior to the B.C. Liberals having tested confidence following the loss of their majority in the May election.
“After B.C. was internationally derided as the wild west of politics due to our lack of campaign finance laws, I am delighted that we finally have all-party agreement on the need for reform,” Weaver said.
“I am also encouraged by our good-faith consultations with the government and by the Attorney General’s statement today that the legislation resulting from our consultations will be tabled next week.
“Now that there is a government that has the confidence of the house, the B.C. Green caucus looks forward to genuine, productive debate in good faith on this crucial issue so that we can finally get big money out of B.C. politics.”
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | email@example.com