Latest / Political Capital with Rob Shaw / #93 - BC's housing hammer, cities ban drug use in public spaces, fundraising numbers and credit rating downgrades

Transcript

#93 - BC's housing hammer, cities ban drug use in public spaces, fundraising numbers and credit rating downgrades · Political Capital with Rob Shaw

0:02
Check Podcasts. Hey everyone, and welcome to Political Capital, your source for
0:19
all the latest in BC politics. I'm your host, Rob Shaw at the
0:23
Check News World headquarters in Victoria. New legislation drops the hammer on housing projects
0:29
in BC. Municimaladies are moving to ban drug use in public places, and
0:33
BC's premier wades into the hostile takeover of mining company Tech Resources. Lots more.
0:39
This week we will bring in the pod squad to talk about it all.
0:43
Jeff, Gillian and Ali are here. Thank you as always for being
0:47
here. Jeff, you have been meaning to introduce us to a new piece
0:51
of artwork for several weeks. Now, I know after every show you lament
0:54
that you weren't able to do it. Do you have it ready? Is
0:55
it ready to go? I have it ready for the podcast. Yeah,
1:00
I'm just kidding describing for all of our podcast listeners. Now, if you
1:04
look behind me, you have the majestic painting by local artist John Ferry at
1:10
Pacific Central Train Station in Vancouver. And today I'd like to unveil the new
1:15
piece of art, which is its very so hading smaller version of the same
1:19
art piece that was done by my colleague MICHAELA and part of on the flower
1:23
pot. That's very nice, like welcome to the show. A little double
1:29
down, controversial, too bad the painting stay all right, it's only getting
1:34
started. That's right. We're that settled. Let's go on to our first
1:40
topic. Premier David Eby's government bringing the hammer down on the first time for
1:46
the first time on a housing project this week, doing what he has long
1:49
warned, which is having the provincial government override the local zoning process to get
1:53
a housing project into reality, in this case, a thirteen story, one
1:57
hundred and thirty unit supportive housing project in Vancouver that local residents challenged in court,
2:02
saying it's too close to a school and a women shelter the city wanted
2:06
it built. The province stepped in is using legislation to cut off the court
2:10
challenge and push it all through. First time that the government has done this,
2:15
after warning it could do it for months. Why do we think the
2:20
premier is doing this and what does it mean for the future of housing projects?
2:23
Jeff, why don't we start with you well on housing affordability. We
2:29
don't have a situation that's mildly challenging or somewhat demanding or mostly tough we have
2:35
a housing crisis, and we need government to use every tool that it's got
2:38
to get things built. So here you have the rbutis project one hundred and
2:43
twenty nine units support of and affordable housing stuck in limbo because of a lawsuit
2:47
launched by opponents. And there are opponents of every housing project. That's the
2:53
story of BC. People at the local level pushing back against any housing,
2:59
especially the most needed kind of housing like this, which is for people who
3:02
are most at risk. I think what we're seeing here is the premier channeling
3:07
his Greg Valentine. I don't know if you folks are wrestling fans or know
3:12
that I'm a wrestling fan, but he's a great wrestler from Seattle, known
3:15
for his big elbow drops that he calls the hammer. It's lowering the hammer,
3:19
showing leadership facing down some powerful and influential political interests, people who can
3:27
cause him electoral hurt, and not just his party. This is his local
3:31
constituency, his riding votes in his community, and he is saying, yeah,
3:38
this is controversial, but the greater good is that we need to get
3:42
housing built, and I'm going to lower the hammer and we're going to make
3:45
it happen, and I think that's the kind of leadership that we need to
3:47
get through this housing crisis and things built. Okay, hammer time to use.
3:53
But I thought it was going to be Jeff's reference, but not quite.
3:57
But can you imagine the material he would need his pants? Maybe for
4:00
the hand of time, pants are coming back, Jeff Ali, what do
4:06
you think is this a beginning of what we're going to see in the province,
4:10
not just this project but elsewhere? Do you think likely? And I
4:15
hope so. I mean, like Jeff said, this is a show of
4:18
leadership on a crisis. But what I do see, I think this is
4:24
the beginning of the conversation. Like thankfully the municipality and the provincial government seemed
4:30
to be on the same page. Those those in opposition are the community itself.
4:36
But this is going to become a larger political issue. I think it's
4:40
not going to go away anytime soon. And the one thing that I think
4:44
that could fix this is an additional announcement of wrap around support because the politics
4:49
behind this proposed project is not the fact that there's house and going in next
4:57
to transit down the road, like the are all really good things. It's
5:00
the type of housing that's going into the community. So what we're potentially going
5:05
to see is the NDP playbook of the opposition being opposed to it because it's
5:14
a class warfare, like not in my backyard of this very affluent community of
5:18
our Budhists and kitsilano I. Don't think it's so much that the community doesn't
5:24
want it there, it's that the community doesn't want that type of housing without
5:29
the additional support. Right now, the proposed project would just dump people in
5:33
it without any support, and it's rich with potential issues for the community.
5:40
There's a women's supports center around the corner, there's a school, there's a
5:44
church. So it's not the housing infrastructure, it's additional support. So my
5:50
last point there is if we want to avoid the political partisanship partisanship of this
5:57
conversation, then announce that you're all so going to offer that wrap around support
6:01
and be on the hook for if something goes wrong in this community. I
6:09
mean, like fair enough to the residents there who are watching similar projects and
6:12
other communities become you know, minor epicenters for public disorder and then getting kind
6:18
of shamed for pointing that out publicly that things are are. There are problems
6:24
associated with a level of support and some of these housing projects. Jillian,
6:27
I think Allie had a good point there that Vancouver asked the province to intervene
6:31
here, But next time we might have a situation of the province big footing
6:34
a municipality out of the way local mayors and counselors and residents to try and
6:39
get this done. And are we starting a you know, a larger process
6:44
here the government is politically going to have to defend Yeah, totally. I
6:48
think that is where this issue could become more politically fraught. This project not
6:58
only has the support of the current mayor but also of the last mayor and
7:00
was passed through council. Um so in some ways because it's politically controversial,
7:04
because it's in Eb's writing and because of you know, just the opposition of
7:08
residence, but it's also politically safe because the province can say, um,
7:13
you know, this has been passed by by two mayors, it was you
7:15
know, went through the democratic process by going through a vote of council um
7:19
so. I think it's it's a good um in that regard, a good
7:24
kind of safe one for them to use this as their first kid get they
7:27
can with this this new power UM and yeah, I agree. I think
7:30
not every local government um IS has as much pressure on them as as the
7:38
Vancouver Council does to pass this kind of housing UM. It can be a
7:41
lot more controversial in other communities that haven't m you know, been sort of
7:45
ground zero of the housing crisis for as long as Vancouver has UM So,
7:48
I think it is going to be really interesting to see and I think that
7:50
will be the first real test if we if we see any that UM where
7:55
the province and local governments are not on the same side with projects. Yeah
8:00
can I sure have been real quick folks make good points. I think Ali's
8:05
right on about the need for wraparound supports. My understanding of our Bautist project
8:09
is that it is support of housing, So that would suggest that there are
8:13
those supports that are going to be available for folks. But let's make sure
8:16
that those supports are there and the follow through happened so that the housing can
8:22
be successful in the tendencies can be successful. Okay, moving along, but
8:26
on a similar vein most of this week in the legislature was dominated by the
8:30
public disorder slash crime issue again, lots of yelling and shouting from MLA's,
8:35
maybe even a bit more than usual. But one angle that seemed to pick
8:37
up steam was the issue of at least two cities, Camel Loops and Campbell
8:41
River preparing by laws to ban the use of drugs in public places like parks,
8:46
playgrounds and beaches. They say BCS Decriminalization Project, which started in late
8:50
January, has made public drug use worse and contributed to some of the issues
8:56
we are seeing in urban centers. The BC United Party agrees with that.
9:00
Government does not, and public health officials do not. They're asking the municipalities
9:05
to not kind of go down this route. But I'm wondering if we're at
9:07
a municipal tipping point of public sympathy towards both the overdose crisis, the unhoused
9:15
and the addictions issues running up against the public fear of disorder and open drug
9:20
use on the cities, and it seems to be playing out differently municipally than
9:22
it is provincially. Ali, let's start with you on that. What do
9:26
you make of all this? Well, we're in a rollercoaster of this whole
9:33
thing being an experiment, right we're in that experimental phase of will this work,
9:37
will not work. I'll say this, there's a municipality in Washington,
9:43
Washington State that's going as far as trying to ban it across city limits.
9:48
Like we're not there yet, but we potentially could be. Right now,
9:54
we're just trying to protect our vulnerable and our children in playgrounds. Like that's
9:58
the political argument, like, let's get drugs off of playgrounds. No one's
10:03
going to argue with that, I don't think. I sure hope not.
10:07
But this has the potential to go down a very very weird road where we're
10:15
banning it across municipalities, and that pressure on municipality seems to come from residents
10:22
who are upset expressing it through their municipalities, but the province doesn't seem to
10:26
be maybe picking it up in the same way. Jillian, Like, I
10:30
kind of look at this issue and you've done polling and as part of your
10:33
career, but I look at it as one of those political sniff test issues.
10:37
If you went out in the street and asked ten people do you think
10:39
there should be open drug use in playgrounds or parks, like most of them
10:43
I think would say no, which makes it a bit harder for government to
10:48
kind of, you know, criticize the municipalities or urge them not to do
10:52
this, I guess. But what do you make of this? Yeah,
10:56
I think it's it's a it's a complicated one because I think, you know,
11:00
I agree, most people would agree. Um, you know, especially
11:03
the way that the counselor and Cauntluss was framing it. You know, you
11:05
can't drink or smoke in these places, as you shouldn't be able to use
11:11
drugs either, and I think that is a very very reasonable. The flip
11:15
side of it is is that the point of decriminalization is to remove stigma and
11:20
to you know, potentially remove sort of criminalization of people who use drugs so
11:24
that we can start really addressing it as a public health issue and break down
11:28
those barriers that stigma presents to people getting help or accessing services. So it's
11:35
tough because, you know, because that stigma still exists and decriminalization is so
11:39
new, it's sort of a false equivalence between drinking um and drug use,
11:43
where we do still see the potential for m vulnerable people who are using drugs
11:48
who are unhoused and don't have anywhere else to go to be UM, you
11:52
know, overly persecuted UM by law enforcement. UM. I think that there's
12:00
other things that the province and municipalities could be doing to sort of provide more
12:05
safe injection sites, provide other other venues for people to go where they can
12:11
access services and where they can be safe, and where we can kind of
12:15
make sure that we're limiting other public harm. But it's it's a tricky one
12:20
because you know, you want to make sure that you're addressing people in the
12:24
community's concerns about safety. As a parent of a young kid, we go
12:26
to the playground almost every day. I really understand that, but I think
12:30
at the same time, we can't. We need to make sure that we're
12:35
not sort of removing all of the good things and the reasons why we're doing
12:39
decriminalization in the first place. As well. It is a good point,
12:43
and health officials have raised it as well, that that stigma or banning people
12:46
who might they're going to use, and if they use in a public place
12:50
and have an overdose, maybe you can save their lives rather than if they
12:54
are stigmatized off into using a loan somewhere and overdosing and not getting help.
12:58
There are people's family members. It's an overdose crisis that is killed almost twelve
13:05
thousand people since twenty sixteen. We have to just pushing them off out of
13:09
sight isn't helping anyone, Jeff. But at the same time, if you
13:13
are at a park with your child and you're seeing needles around and someone having
13:18
a psychotic episode due to the drugs they're using, you probably have a right
13:22
to go to your local council and say that's not cool and it's not safe
13:26
for me either, which leads to this kind of ying and yang on the
13:30
issue. Sure, it's complex issue, and you've got competing interests. How
13:35
do you keep people who used drugs alive at a time when thousands are dying?
13:39
With respect to you, the well meeting counselors observation that we don't have
13:46
cigarette smoking in parks. The difference between cigarettes and a syringe is that five
13:50
minutes after you have a cigarette, sometimes you don't die, right, and
13:54
that's what's happening. So we're trying to keep people alive. But you're absolutely
13:58
right that and you want to get those folks into treatment and get better if
14:01
it's at all possible. But you also want to do it in a way
14:05
that ensures public spaces are safe for everyone. So I would say to folks
14:09
who are advocating banning the use of drugs and public spaces, is that you
14:16
have to make spaces available for people to use drugs when they don't have any
14:22
place else to go. And so if you're going to say that's not in
14:26
parks and it's not in public spaces, then you need to have the political
14:31
courage to also say we're going to have more and bigger and more accessible safe
14:35
injection sites, which where that do save people's lives, that give people a
14:43
place to do something they're going to do in a safe place with other people,
14:48
where if things go wrong, there's someone there to help them and at
14:50
the same time there's people who know that are with if they're well staffed,
14:58
point people to place as they can go to to get help. So,
15:03
um, you know it is a dilemma for local officials, but you know,
15:07
if you're going to force people out of parks, they're gonna end up
15:11
in alleyways or in corners alone and die. No one wants that, unless
15:15
suggest an anyone wants that. So make the space is available and longer term
15:20
poison free, safe supply of drugs will keep people alive, detox on demand
15:26
is really important. It's something that the opposition parties are raising and I think
15:31
they're right on about that, and the support of housing that we were talking
15:33
about the segment before given I think that's the solution, and it's it's it's
15:39
a tough one, but yeah, just the health out of site is the
15:46
worst solution. Yeah, it would be nice to see the health authorities step
15:50
up a bit more. I know in Campbell River, for example, they're
15:52
pointing out the limited hours at a supervised consumption site runs. That's a provincial
15:56
responsibility. In communities that are considering this, maybe the robin should come to
16:00
the table with some money or some additional resources to allow for those to stay
16:06
open longer. I don't know. It's going to end up being on a
16:07
c by city basis. It looks like right now Kamloops Sikamuse already passed this
16:14
by law, Cologna's talking about it, Campbell Rivers voting on it next week.
16:18
So it's going to end up being another debate, a very passionate,
16:22
fiery debate in the legislature this week onto another issue here new fundraising numbers out
16:27
from Elections BC. They usually these things give us a glimpse into how parties
16:30
are doing. We sift through fundraising for clues on strengths and weaknesses. The
16:36
NDP raised almost four million dollars in twenty twenty two. The BC Liberals now
16:41
BC United raised two and a half million, and the Greens raised around one
16:45
million. Almost ninety thousand for the BC Conservatives. Is there anything we can
16:49
take from this? The numbers are around the same for the Greens, a
16:53
little bump up for the Liberals or United an NDP from last year. Both
17:00
had leadership campaigns. Um, the Liberals had a pretty good last quarter.
17:04
Or any any of this coalesce into some trends, Jillian, or anything that
17:10
we can we can take away from this, um, I think it,
17:15
you know, it's it's interesting. Well, first, it's interesting to me
17:18
that they're all able to sort of keep their numbers up, UM, given
17:22
the economic conditions and how much we talk about sort of political disengagement. I
17:26
think it shows that they're all working hard, um uh to sort of keep
17:32
up that support and to stay election ready with that threat constantly on the table.
17:36
UM. I think that This is a little bit probably a bit of
17:38
relief for the Liberals, but still they're they're um, just like a little
17:44
bit more than half of what the BCNDP is raising. They still have not
17:48
um recovered from the new election finance laws. Um fully to be at that
17:52
point where they're where they're you know, neck and neck with NDP. I
17:56
think they used to even outraise them probably in their big money and that's you
18:00
know, challenging when it comes to trying to run a full province wide election
18:04
campaign. UM. I think um. For the Greens, I think it's
18:10
you know, pretty it's good. This is the second year that's not an
18:12
election year that they and they have a leadership contest where they've raised over a
18:15
million UM. They're still you know, doing good work there. Um.
18:21
I think the question will be can they grow when it is an election year
18:23
um and really get to that next level. But with two MLAs to to
18:27
raise, you know, just shry a half of what the Liberals raised,
18:30
is I think pretty good for them. Um. And then yeah, I
18:33
think the the NDP machine is still obviously very strong, continuing to raise lots
18:38
of money in Phillips Coffers to have a really strong campaign next time. The
18:44
NDP a juggernaut Ellie when it comes to fundraising. The United Party picking up
18:48
some steam near the end of the year. But what do we make of
18:52
that? Yeah, so, I mean the the PC United were one hundred
18:56
thousand dollars behind the BCNDP in the last quarter of twenty twenty two, which
19:03
is all signaling good news. What's going to happen I think in twenty twenty
19:07
three, though, is we have potential by elections, so there will be
19:11
an influx of cash there. And the fact that there's more issues right now.
19:18
I think political parties in the province have kind of been distracted with leadership
19:22
races and their internal factors. But now we just get to move on to
19:29
the issues. And so for BC United, like we're seeing an uptick.
19:33
When it came to the betterest Possible Mental Health and Addictions Plan, people really
19:38
believed in it, so much so that they sent over some money to BC
19:42
United. After the launch last week, the leader went up to Kelowna and
19:48
in one day made over one hundred thousand dollars fundraising there as well. And
19:53
these are moments of intrigue for people to say, yeah, I need to
20:00
invest in these political parties again, So twenty twenty three is going to be
20:03
very interesting because of the by elections as well. It'll be a nice indicator
20:08
of when the provincial election comes up, who and where are people who going
20:12
to invest their money. Great point, Jeff. You know now there are
20:17
issues and not leaders to fundraise for and to gauge support for, so that
20:21
that'll make it a different year as well. As Ellie said, h m
20:26
key takeaways here are the David EB seems pretty popular. NDP seems pretty popular
20:30
there raising lots of money. Good on them. Okay, all right,
20:37
well what else am I going to say? Like the numbers reflect popular support.
20:42
Parties are all working hard. You would expect that the opposition numbers would
20:48
come up as you get closer to an election, as they as they gear
20:52
up. But you know, you look at places like City of Vancouver where
20:56
there was an incumbent mayor and who ran out of money because he wasn't popular
21:00
and wasn't supported, and that's not happening with the NDP. So it says
21:03
to me that folks who think that the next election is going to be a
21:07
repeat of the Vancouver municipal election, or are these numbers suggest that it's going
21:12
to be something different, that there's enduring resilience and the NDPS a brand in
21:18
support and the people like the premier and they're putting their money where their feelings
21:25
are. Yeah, okay, well we'll watch them. You know. They're
21:27
one of the clues, along with polling and other things, not very scientific,
21:30
but some of the only clues we have on how the parties are sort
21:33
of resonating with their base and also with others as well. So we will
21:38
keep on that. On another matter here, we saw a very rare move
21:42
by the Premier this week to intervene publicly with his opinion about a private sector
21:49
issue involving mining company Tech Resources, headquartered here in British Columbia, which is
21:55
facing a hostile takeover bid from Swiss mining company glen Core. Tech is BC's
22:00
largest producer of things like copper which we use in evs and solar panels and
22:07
wiring. It wants to spin off into a steelmaking coal operation into a separate
22:12
company. Political trivia note former Premier John Horgan would be on the board of
22:17
that company, but Glencore doesn't want that. It wants to buy the whole
22:21
thing as one company fold it into its international operations. So David eb coming
22:25
out this week urging Tech shareholders to reject that bid for the hostile takeover and
22:30
try to preserve the BC jobs in the BC headquarters of Tech Resources. Do
22:37
you rarely see premiers weight into private corporate matters like this, Probably for good
22:41
reason. But what do we think of David eb saying these things, Jillian?
22:48
And do we think they might even have an impact? Well, the
22:52
main shareholder if tech could already issued a statement saying that he didn't support the
22:56
takeover, that Glencore isn't the right right person to sell to. UM.
23:00
Tech has two kind of main shareholders and so it seems unlikely that this is
23:04
going to go ahead. So I think in that regard it's not a huge
23:07
risk um for eb UM and as you said, rob them. The reason
23:14
for for Tech split, which sort of predates this UM hostile takeover attempt UM,
23:19
is because they want to spin off their sort of UM you know,
23:23
uh like air quotes green mining, UM mining for for metals that are going
23:27
to go into sort of clean energy, clean sort of type products UM off
23:33
from their their coal mining UM to sort of you know, make sure that
23:38
their corporate branding is consistent with environmental social goals UM and so I think and
23:45
and Glencore is sort of I had somebody who referred to it to me this
23:48
week is sort of like the super villain of the mining world. Um.
23:52
They're you know, they're um paid huge fines UM getting in lots of trouble
23:56
for environmental violations. Not the kind in a company that I think the government
24:03
or you know, the current shareholders and board of Tex sort of wants engaged
24:07
in mining NBC because it's not consistent with sort of where we're both the government
24:11
and the industry is headed locally. So I think it's it's it's it is
24:15
unusual to see a premier make comments like this, um, but it's also
24:19
maybe not that surprising sort of just given the context and how how important of
24:23
a company Tech is to the province. M Jeff, what did you think
24:27
of what the premier said? And do you think it's going to have an
24:30
impact or why do you think he did it? I think he did it
24:37
because it's in British Columbia's interest to maintain local control over a major goings bedrock
24:44
economic jobs company like Tech. Look, I think this is the biggest BC
24:51
business story since COVID shut down the economy and folks should be playing real close
24:56
attention here. While it's true that the shareholders right now are I have taken
25:04
the position saying it's it's not likely to happen, they have a fiduciary duty
25:11
to the shareholders and so to act in their fiscal interests. And so depending
25:18
on what Glencore tries and chooses to do in the days ahead, that could
25:22
absolutely change. And you know, whether you like tech or you don't,
25:27
whether you're a fan of mining or you're not, and I like them both,
25:32
but I know they'll be folks who are who are listening, who will
25:34
think differently. But no matter where you stand on that, you know,
25:38
I think it's important that the Premier stepping in because he believes it's important to
25:41
have local control of well paying HQ jobs. Losing headquarters a lot in British
25:49
Columbia. We don't have that many. This is an important one. Whould
25:52
keep it. We want local control of decisions about the future of British Columbia
25:57
minds and mining projects and jobs and community benefits. I took a family member
26:03
to the Tech emergency room at Saint Paul's Hospital a few weeks ago. You
26:08
know, God bless Corps and I'm sure bar Switzerland is really nice, but
26:14
I'm not sure you'll get the same attention to BC from there as you would
26:18
from Tech's head office in Vancouver. We absolutely want more local control and local
26:23
knowledge of environmental priorities and performance, indigenous reconciliation and efforts. And I think,
26:29
you know, the big hand we're talking about hammers today, so you
26:32
know the big hammer is that you know, critical minerals are absolutely essential to
26:37
Canada's future where we need those resources to achieve our economic and climate aspirations.
26:44
And having those in the control of a British Columbia company instead of a Swiss
26:48
multinational and the Premier's view is is really important. So I was glad to
26:53
see the premiers speak out and I think it was appropriate and we'll see what
27:03
happens. This is a great, big deal ali that context you have just
27:07
mentioned, I think, and Jillian mentioned as well, that you know,
27:10
we see the Prime Minister, we see the US President all trying to you
27:15
know, come up with a clean energy future for North America that requires minerals
27:19
that we are not getting from China and Russia and unstable, unreliable international partners.
27:25
And here we have the biggest copper uh, you know, mining company
27:27
in Canada in BC and it's threatening to get bought out by an international company.
27:33
I guess that context is pretty important when we're trying to understand why the
27:37
premier would wait in on something like this one. He's got a climate plan
27:41
and then clean tech plan. That tech is going to help provide resources for
27:47
Oh. Absolutely, so I think one the premier stepping in definitely to continue
27:53
to fight for the lowering our greenhouse gas emissions and the clean tech aspect of
28:00
this whole thing. But it's also because to Jeff's point, like we need
28:07
to keep head offices here in BC. So on the provincial context, I
28:11
do see the Premier heading down that path of fighting to keep this head office
28:15
here. It's good for the economy, it's good for jobs, it's good
28:19
for tax revenues. But the Business Council of BC just recently put out this
28:26
report and so like the timing is just so perfect for this, and I
28:30
would really encourage listeners to read it. But I learned through this report from
28:37
Jack Finlayson and David Williams is that BC's only home to twelve percent of home
28:44
of big corporate offices. Are other provinces that do really well. Of course
28:49
our Ontario at Quebec and Alberta. Alberta's focused on energy, of course,
28:56
and we lost nine of those since two thousand and twelve. Losing tech would
29:02
be a big hit to the BC economy. So I do see the Premier
29:07
fighting and advocating for the economic aspect of it. But then I think federally
29:14
we're going to see our Prime Minister follow suit as well on the economic impact
29:19
of it all, but most more so the environmental aspect. And we could
29:26
go back to twenty ten. I think it was when Stephen Harper was weighing
29:30
in on the potash negotiation with BHP, and so it's not unheard of for
29:37
our elected representatives to weigh in and have their opinions on this. But going
29:42
back to the environmental argument, this is an asset that we have in BC
29:48
and we have some of the highest standards in the world, and for a
29:52
foreign company to come in and make the new rules some of the those I
30:00
mean the federal government has some responsibility here, but to create these new roles
30:03
wouldn't be in line with what our elected officials are trying to achieve for our
30:08
plans for twenty thirty five and to eliminate gas emission vehicles. I mean,
30:15
these are the assets required to make that happen. Yeah, I'm sure some
30:22
people would prefer we just have you know, Lulu Lemon headquarters here and hohot
30:26
Sweet and then that's it. That's our economy. But if we're going to
30:29
build, if we're going to force electric vehicles, which we should, and
30:32
we're going to you know, push heat pumps and solar panels and things,
30:36
we need the minerals to build them. And Tech is a big player and
30:38
that and that's why we that's why we brought it up. We'll see how
30:42
it goes. The premiers is that at least a couple public comments about it,
30:47
and I'm not sure what impact they'll have. But the proxy vote,
30:51
I think is Monday, and then the other vote is later in the week,
30:53
so you may be listening to this and know the outcome of the tech
30:57
vote. Already one final issue here and we're not gonna spend a lot of
31:00
time on this, I don't think, but it is worth noting that one
31:03
of the major credit rating agencies downgraded BC's credit rating this week from triple A
31:10
plus. Sorry, double A plus to double A sounds like a battery to
31:12
me, but double A plus to double A, saying it is concerned about
31:17
debt levels, deficit spending, an overall lack of fiscal restraint. There are
31:22
four major credit companies that monitor BC, three of them and I've already said
31:26
they're okay with things and economic growth. This is the outlier we Does it
31:33
mean anything? You know? Eventually at some point it could increase the borrowing
31:37
costs to BC, but mostly this is a political football. I think that
31:41
everyone uses this kind of economic validation, but I don't know does anyone.
31:45
We don't need to go all the way around. We can just throw it
31:48
out there. Does anyone have any strong thoughts on the credit rating agency SMP
31:52
jumping in here? And should we be listening to them? Or is this
31:56
a warning sign? Anybody? Okay, I'll jump in. What the heck?
32:01
What the what the heck? Uh? You know? Uh, dear
32:06
SMP credit analysts, please pay more attention than what's going on in British Columbia.
32:10
I read through their report and it said that the reason why they downgraded
32:20
UM well, one of the you know, one of the factors involved was
32:23
that they were surprised that BC used the surplus in the most recent budget for
32:31
investing in key priorities instead of paying down debt. And with you know,
32:37
great respect, anyone who's been watching British Columbia over the last number of months,
32:44
and certainly listeners of this podcast, will know that that money was always
32:49
going to investing in key priorities and anyone who fixed differently is as clueless as
32:54
Inspector Clusseau in the Pink Panther movies. You know, I think fiscal sustainability
33:00
over the long term is absolutely critical and important. Three credit rating agencies are
33:07
on board with BC's plan for that. And if the bond raiders want to
33:15
face some sense of real risk in this province, of a real potential impact
33:21
on the province's ability to function and pay down debt, consider the risk of
33:25
its standing pat and doing nothing to address housing and access to family doctors and
33:31
public safety and the climate crisis. And see what kind of fiscal state that
33:37
we're in five years down the road if we spend our money paying off these
33:45
bankers instead of investing in people in communities as we ought to. That's my
33:50
spicy take, spicy anyone else. It's still a slippery slope though, right
33:57
and I'm stealing that slippery slope and from Jock Finlayson who said that earlier this
34:02
week in response to this news story from BCBC. It's a slippery slope.
34:07
I think I mean to be generous in saying that the NDP get a little
34:12
bit of a pass, because yes, it's been turbulent times and we need
34:15
to invest in people, sure, but that's investment in people right now.
34:22
The credit score ratings are important because it helps us plan for future investment.
34:28
And so if they don't start creating policies that also invest back into our province
34:37
and diversify our economic portfolio in BC, then we're going to run out of
34:45
money real soon, and we're going to run out of the flexibility to be
34:49
able to invest in people down the road. So it's not quite dire yet,
34:55
but it is that slippery slope. And ultimately, like when comes to
35:00
British Columbians and do they care about this issue, I think most people would
35:07
think, well, times are tough right now, so I'll let it pass.
35:12
It's it's a pass this year, but we'll we'll see this time next
35:16
year. Yeah. Well, the political challenge of being more worried about the
35:22
credit rating than the public sentiment, you know, is best expressed in the
35:28
twenty seventeen election with the Liberals leaving billions on the table unspent at a time
35:35
when the public was getting upset because they really really really wanted to hang on
35:37
to that credit rating, which the NDP has managed to do, you know,
35:42
despite a lot of spending. So mostly Jillian, any last thoughts on
35:46
that. Um, Yeah, I mean I think I agree on the political
35:49
side, but I think I think the flip side of that is if it
35:52
does slip from the other agencies and the interest rates go up, they are
35:55
going to be able, They're gonna not be able to spend as much,
35:59
and that is something then there's going to be cuts, and I think that
36:01
is something that they do really want to avoid. Um. What the other
36:06
three credit credit agencies pointed out is that they have considerable contingencies, um and
36:12
very conservative assumption. So I kind of think that the NDP is actually like
36:16
they've been budgeting that way so that they can, you know, under promise
36:21
and over deliver and hopefully have be in this situation where they can have surpluses
36:25
and they can kind of say, yeah, we're, you know, so
36:28
good at managing it. We made even more money and now we can spend
36:30
it. UM. And I think that's a pattern that they've gotten really comfortable
36:34
in. It's going to be really interesting to see next year, I think,
36:37
because what's different. And I think another thing that's been boying those surpluses
36:42
is the stronger than expected housing market. And we're seeing now housing starts down,
36:46
UM, in real estate transactions down this year. UM. That's really
36:51
going to hit the budget um and and it's going to be really interesting to
36:54
see. Um there is a deficit forecast for next year, I believe um
37:00
there was one forecast for this year and we still got the surplus. So
37:01
it's going to be really really interesting to see, you what comes next year,
37:05
which is also an election year, and if that this sort of trend
37:08
cycle that we've been in for the last couple of years comes to an end,
37:12
even despite the conservative budgeting practices. Yeah, the other credit ratings rating
37:17
agencies do point that out. They say BC always overperforms and it's you know,
37:22
year end. And in fact, I think, you know, if
37:23
the government wanted to make a pretty good argument about that right now, they
37:27
could tell us what we ended the fiscal year actually spending on the debt,
37:32
which I think is in the realm of a billion to maybe two billion dollars
37:36
of surplus. David eb wasn't able to spend and did go on to debt
37:39
repayment. But for whatever reason the government wants to hold that to public accounts.
37:44
It would be a pretty effective way to counter this credit rating agency to
37:47
say, yeah, we not only spent money on people, but we did
37:51
spend it on the debt. You know, eat that Swiss bankers. But
37:55
yeah, but rob, come on, people. The most watched event in
38:00
British Columbia is the meeting of the public accounts the Legislature. There's millions of
38:07
people to watch it. And I want to alleys twice raise the name of
38:09
Jock Finlayson as a as a to back up her our great mustache. By
38:15
the way, and I want to say this, if you're gonna talk about
38:17
job, let's be clear about Jock Finlayson. Really smart guy, cares a
38:22
lot about British Columbia, does really good well thought out reports. That's all
38:28
I have to say. That's true. We're all a fan of Jock.
38:31
I think over the years, and you know, I did a story not
38:34
that long ago one of the columns where he said, you know what,
38:37
we are able to maintain our debt and our things right now. The metrics
38:40
we use based on revenue and economic growth are fine. If we continue this
38:45
long term, there will be issues, but for now everything seems all right.
38:51
So also fritache, also good mustache, A good mustache. I can't
38:55
grow that kind of mustache I've been working on in forty one years. It's
38:59
going nowhere fast. So that is the great content for the podcast. There
39:04
the end of the show, thank you panel for being here. As always,
39:07
thank you for listening. Make sure you subscribe to the podcast, get
39:09
the ding in the old podbox there on Fridays with all the latest, and
39:14
we will be back next week to discuss BC politics here on Political Capital