Today the BC Government introduced Bill 52: Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018. As noted in the BC Government’s press release, this bill makes three important changes to Agricultural Land Commission Act by:

• “Restoring the integrity of the ALR by reinstating one zone for all ALR land in B.C., making it clear that all land in the ALR benefits from the same strong protections.
• Addressing mega-mansions and speculation in the ALR by limiting new house sizes to less than 500 square metres [about 5,400 square feet], except through application to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) in cases where it would support farming; and requiring an ALC approval of any additional residences in the ALR to curb non-farm development.
• Cracking down on the dumping of construction debris, toxic waste and other fill in the ALR that can irreparably damage arable soil on valuable farmland, through increased penalties.”

My colleague Adam Olsen and I issued a press release (reproduced below) in support of the legislation. We’re very pleased that the Minister will be clamping down on the preponderance of “mega mansions” being built on ALR.

Media Release

B.C. Greens welcome government legislation to protect B.C. agriculture
For immediate release
November 5, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader, and Adam Olsen, spokesperson for agriculture for the B.C. Green Party caucus, endorsed the provincial government’s legislation to protect B.C. farmland. The legislation includes two policies, to limit house size on ALR and to return the ALR to a single zone, that Weaver and Olsen have previously called for.

“These measures will strengthen our local food security and improve opportunities for the economic development of our agricultural sector,” said Weaver.

“As the impacts of climate change take hold, B.C.’s agricultural land is increasingly more valuable. The two zone system brought in under the previous government opened up our irreplaceable farmland to development that was completely unrelated to farming. Returning the ALR to a single, dedicated zone will put our province in a far stronger position, both from a security and an economic perspective.”

The return of the ALR to a single zone was part of the B.C. Green Party’s 2017 platform. The B.C. Green MLAs have subsequently called for the province to limit house sizes on ALR in question period over the course of the last year.

“I am very relieved that the government is taking action to stymie speculation on farmland so that it can remain affordable for local farmers,” said Olsen.

“The proliferation of mega-mansions on B.C. farmland has driven up prices at a time when the industry faces a demographic crisis. The cost of farmland is cited as the number one barrier to young farmers hoping to enter the market. Keeping farmland at a price that is competitive for farmers, not real estate speculators, is crucial.”

-30-

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

Today in the legislature Bill 53: Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018 was up for debate at second reading. Recall that this bill aligns advertising and financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act.

As I noted earlier, the BC Liberals continue to oppose banning big money out of BC politics. They seem to think that it is alright for a single corporation or a wealthy individual or MLA to be able to put any amount of money into either supporting or opposing a recall campaign or a citizen’s initiative.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech in two parts. The first part occurred before the lunch break; I picked up immediately after lunch.

The video might be entertaining as the BC Liberals were heckling so loudly I found it difficult to hear myself at sometimes.

Videos of Speech

Text of Speech (Part 1)

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. True to form, frankly, the official opposition once more stood up today and rallied against taking big money out of politics. It’s remarkable.

I wonder if, after almost a year and a half, they’ve learned anything from the last election. I’m wondering whether the official opposition have not learnt the lesson that put them in the time-out where they’re sitting now, a lesson which is to have them realize that what matters to British Columbians is not the games and the cynicism but actually ensuring that their interests are front and centre in our democracy.

Now, listening to the member for Vancouver-Langara, moments ago, discuss another bill, frankly, and not actually address the substance of this bill, which is taking big money out of yet another aspect of B.C. politics, I had a lightbulb go on. The lightbulb was this. I realize now why the B.C. Liberals are so cynical, are throwing allegations of gaming the system, are actually claiming that this is undermining this and that. It’s because that’s the mindset by which they operated government for the last 16 years, and they recognize and realize….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver-Langara said he wasn’t here for 16 years, and I understand that.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, Oak Bay–Gordon Head has the floor.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver-Langara wasn’t here for 16 years, but I suspect the person who wrote his speech was.

The cynicism embodied in what we hear today is classic. It is exactly what I’ve come to now realize. It is the way that they operate.

They accuse others of being them, because the only frame that they understand is one of a few select people doing what’s in the best interest of the people that they want to represent. I understand that. It was a lightbulb, and I expect to hear more about that as we discuss this bill further.

I’m not sure what, if anything, as I said, the official opposition have learned. We, in British Columbia, were called the Wild West of political financing by the New York Times. That’s not exactly a brand that we would want to actually take some pride in. It’s an embarrassing brand.

One of the first things that was done with the new government was reflecting the will of election campaign promises of both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens to ban big money. What was truly remarkable is that the B.C. Liberals voted against that as well. They voted against banning big money in provincial politics. Talk about self-serving, the gall.

To be in this Legislature, today again…. We listen to B.C. Liberal after B.C. Liberal go on about how somehow this proportional representation campaign is self-serving, after they voted against the bill to ban big money, at first reading of this bill. Without even having the opportunity to see what was in the bill, they voted at first reading against taking big money out.

Bill 53 complements Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017, which was passed and which again, as I pointed out, was voted against by the B.C. Liberals. It also complements Bill 15, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, which was passed in the fall of last year as well, which took big money out of local government elections. So big money is now gone from provincial elections, from local government elections and from school board elections. What’s happening right now is that the final aspect of that is being closed — in recall and initiative campaigns.

When this bill was introduced, my office put out a press release applauding this bill. What was stated in our press release — and attributed to quotes which I gave — was: “Recall campaigns should be about making politicians accountable to their constituents, not to making them subject to big money–funded hit jobs.” That was one of the quotes I gave for that. Another quote I suggested was: “These rules will apply to both proponents of recall campaigns and politicians who are attempting to stay in power.” It’s conveniently forgotten by members opposite that big money can be used not only by a proponent of a recall campaign but by a defendant in a recall campaign. That is being cleared up in this particular legislation.

This legislation will assure that a sufficiently motivated electorate is able to recall their elected officials without risking the process being corroded by the influence of big money. Politicians should be accountable to voters, plain and simple. Unions, corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals should not have a disproportionate say in our democracy, whether they support an elected official or the recall campaign against that elected official. Right now, any person, any union, any corporation — any entity anywhere in the world — can give any amount of money, any time they want, to any recall campaign. I think we don’t want that. I truly think we don’t want that here.

As I said in our press release, I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the B.C. Liberals voted against this legislation. This is the same party that refused to act while our province was internationally derided as the Wild West of political fundraising, only to make a 180 reversal in their summer of 2017 throne speech, in a desperate attempt to cling to power.

It’s remarkable that the official opposition continues to fail to understand that democracy should reflect the views of citizens as equal members of society, not the ability of special interests who happen to have slightly deeper pockets.

Coming back to this legislation. Under the Recall and Initiative Act, when a recall petition is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, the voter becomes the proponent of the recall petition and has up to 60 days to garner signatures and submit the petition for verification.

There have been 26 recall campaigns that went through. The 27th was actually not followed through on, because the actual MLA at the time resigned before votes were counted. No recall campaign has been successful. One, where the proponents thought that they had enough signatures, turned out not to be successful — because, as we know with petitions, you’re in a mall somewhere and anybody can sign, and of course, you have to be in the riding that you were. In fact, after they counted, a substantial number of the votes were deemed to be ineligible, and it was not successful. So there has not been a successful recall campaign.

It’s remarkable, again, that the member for Vancouver-Langara suggested that there was one. He suggested that in fact there was a successful one. There was not. Again, alt-facts. This is very similar to what we’re seeing in the self-serving discussion by the opposite side about proportional representation.

As mentioned, a voter can only petition to recall the member for the electoral district in which they are registered to vote. That doesn’t stop people anywhere in the province, any corporation, donating any amount of money to that initiative, right now. But that will change. We also know that there’s a very high bar in recall campaigns. Forty percent of voters eligible to sign the petition in that electoral district must actually sign. If the petition meets the criteria, a by-election must be called within 90 days.

Now, I know that the B.C. Liberals are all salivating about the opportunity to have a recall campaign — a recall campaign here and a recall campaign there.  The reality, I suggest, is that they should actually be worrying about recall campaigns in their own ridings, based on their performance in this Legislature over the last session — where we have spent almost 36 hours debating a bill that is actually being debated solely in the self-interest of a party that is made up of multiple factions that are clearly warring within themselves.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: They’re warring within themselves. You can hear it in the banter in this room. It’s a party that’s afraid of the future, a party that is afraid of British Columbians actually having a say in their own democracy — because they might not like what the outcome is.

No other Canadian jurisdiction provides a legislative framework for voters to remove an elected member from office. We are unique here. Successful petitions, as we note, do result in the immediate removal of an MLA. A recall petition cannot be initiated until at least 18 months after an MLA is elected. In the present case, that date would be November 10. It’s incredibly easy for a citizen to initiate a recall campaign. You basically need a 50-buck processing fee and a statement not exceeding 200 words setting out why, in the opinion of the applicant, the recall campaign is warranted.

We have an initiative…. It’s very similar for initiatives. I’ll come to that in a second. We still have an initiative that just stopped — an initiative to basically stop Site C. I don’t know what happened to that, because we still haven’t seen the signatures. It didn’t get a lot of attention.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, we have no idea. I never saw that.

Anybody can do these. That’s the point I’m raising. Whether they’re successful or not, anyone can do it. The point of the matter is that what’s being done here is that certain rules are applied to ensure that vested interests — that have been so embraced by the former government, now official opposition — cannot use their deep pockets to actually influence.

I do note the time, though, and I reserve my right to continue my position in debate.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Text of Speech (Part 2)

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party.

Leader, Third Party.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I continue my place in this debate after the demotion I just received over lunch.

For those in Hansard, I was introduced as the House Leader, Third Party instead of the Leader of the Third Party.

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Third Party.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I rise again to continue my place as designated speaker from the Third Party on Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018.

I want to summarize where I left off at the last, just before lunch. As I left off, we were standing here in this Legislature essentially debating this. On the one side of this House, we have a party and a third party — a government and a third party — who are supporting legislation which will eliminate big money from recall campaigns and initiatives. What that’s saying is that this act — that is, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act — will come into compliance, in essence, or come in to be similar to the elections act — which the Liberals voted against, mind you — to ban big money from B.C. politics.

Now, what the official opposition is arguing, in summary, to this is they’re arguing against this bill. In essence, this is what they’re saying. They’re defending the ability of one individual or one corporation with deep pockets to spend millions of dollars because he or she may have a personal grudge against an MLA. They’re aggrieved by the affronts to democracy that this would have by not allowing one individual with a grudge against an MLA or one individual with a grudge against a government’s policy to be able to spend their millions to actually recall an MLA or put forward an initiative.

You know, members opposite laugh. I mean, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who seems to find this all very funny, should probably spend more time talking to British Columbians about how happy they were that big money was finally from B.C. politics. Let’s see him defend and stand up there, stand up and defend the fact  that they, the B.C. Liberals, continue to argue that it is okay. A year after we banned it from B.C. elections, they continue to argue that it is okay for a corporation to intervene in our electoral process and spend millions of dollars because they don’t like an MLA or they want an initiative. This, to the B.C. Liberals, is democracy. On this side of the House, we’re saying: “Enough of that.”

You clearly — you being the B.C. Liberals — have learned nothing from the last election. You have not listened to British Columbians for the last year and a half. You continue to think that British Columbians think it is okay that you seem to see that your only goal in this Legislature is to stand and complain about the fact that you’re in the opposition. At some point…

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair.

A. Weaver: …the B.C. Liberals need to recognize that they’re in a time-out, that they’re going to be sitting in opposition for a long time. As soon as they come to realize that, they might actually start to debate issues that matter here in the province of British Columbia, not issues that come to the foundation of their existence as a party and their quest for power.

I cannot believe this. They seem not to have learned anything. They seem to not recognize that people in British Columbia are cynical about the B.C. Liberal approach to politics. They seem to not recognize that it is not okay for friends and donors to that party — through you, hon. Speaker, the other party that’s not on this side of the House…. It is not okay for them to have corporate donors give them hundreds of thousands of dollars and then them make decisions — some of which I hope to explore in the weeks and months ahead — that are clearly not in the best interests of British Columbians but are clearly in the best interests of the donors to the party making those decisions.

This is what we’re hearing. We’re hearing a defence of the status quo from a couple of years ago, the status quo that put opposition where they are. In the debate, their critic to this file, the member for Vancouver-Langara, did not once mention the fact that this bill is actually banning big money. His remarks to the debate were a diatribe, a continuation of the 36 hours we’ve had to sit here and listen to the drivel — yes, drivel — misinformation, alternate facts emanating from members opposite as they try to campaign on a quest of fear over proportional representation.

Again, they clearly haven’t understood that in British Columbia, the largest voting demographic are the millennials now. The largest voting demographic are the millennials. And what they don’t understand is that millennials are voting out of hope — the hope expressed by the two parties over here working together. They are not reacting to the fear of a dynasty from the last century, struggling to find a mandate for itself, unable to define who they are but united under one quest — the quest for power.

They have the gall at times to suggest that ride-hailing not being brought in — it’s going to be brought in this fall; it’s not being brought in now — was somehow not their responsibility.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

A. Weaver: I sat in this Legislature, and not once, not twice, but three times brought in a private member’s bill. They had every opportunity to enact to bring in ride-hailing three years ago. But ah, they didn’t do it. Why? Because as I pointed out before lunch, the cynical framework that governs the party opposite is one in which it is all about power.

Heaven forbid they actually bring in ride-hailing in the lead up to the 2017 provincial election and alienate a few key ridings south of the Fraser that they were hoping to get. Fortunately, they were trumped out by removing some tolls on those same ridings. But nevertheless, it wasn’t brought in. There is simply no high ground for the members opposite on this file. In fact, it’s almost humorous when they bring it forth.

Coming back to this Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. Again, we’re seeing nothing more than consistency here, eliminating the ability of big money to influence politics in B.C. in its final form.

Coming to some of the changes that I outlined earlier that are happening. We know that the Election Act was amended last year and that this area, this particular component, the Recall and Initiative Act, was not. Right now, all that’s happening, all that’s happening…. This is what we’re debating here, not proportional representation that they’re hung up on.

Honestly, I come back to 36 hours in here. I’ve heard the same speech for 36 hours. For those riveted to Hansard, just go back and type in the words “stacked deck” and see how many of the members opposite have been reading their media lines.

Change game. I mean “rigged game.” Look up “rigged game” as well. They have a 22-year-old staffer down in the basement who is writing them speeches, and we have the puppets opposite who are reading the same speech member after member after member. It’s frankly embarrassing that we have 42 members opposite who collectively cannot write an independent speech, and we have to listen to that here.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. Let’s get back to the bill please

A. Weaver: Coming back to the financing window, we know that this act aligns financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act and changes that were made last year in the Election Act amendment changes last year that, of course, members opposite also voted against because, of course, they still want big money in politics.

We know that this bill before us is banning union and corporations just like has occurred in the local government elections, school board elections and provincial elections. We know that it’s setting a $1,200 limit to contributions for individual British Columbians just like exists in the Elections Act, just like exist in local governments and school boards. We know it creates a third-party spending limit of $5,000 for advertising during the recall petition period.

Frankly, these were needed changes. Frankly, I do not think it is okay if somebody with a grudge or an MLA who happens to have access to a deep corporate sponsor could somehow in the case of an MLA who can — there might be a recall campaign — perhaps go to somebody and get several $100,000 to prop up a campaign and spread disinformation.

I don’t think that is right. I don’t think it is right that the opposite could occur — that a particular vested interest could solely fund a campaign initiative in British Columbia. These are common sense changes. Again, I get these common sense changes make the Liberals feel uncomfortable. They make them feel uncomfortable because they’ve been playing by this rigged game with a stacked deck for far too long. What they’re finally seeing is that rigged game with a stacked deck is being fixed. They can’t take it.

They can’t take it because they know that the reason why they were able to remain in power and the reason why they were able to ignore British Columbians for so long was because they could appeal to their corporate donors for vast quantities of money to ensure that they got the airways filled with their message, went on character assassinations with anyone who opposed them. That’s the way they go. That’s the way they operate.

Look at where we are now. Corporate donations no longer. The B.C. Greens are nipping at the tails of the B.C. Liberals in terms of annual funding. We are not too far from them in terms of annual funding. That’s what happens when people have to support parties, not vested interests.

As I said, the bill is common sense. Only one recall campaign can exist at a time. Now, I heard the member for Vancouver-Langara somehow thinks this was an affront to democracy, clearly not even listening to his own arguments during his diatribe. On one hand, he would suggest that it’s important for people to actually have an attempt to follow through with a recall and that maybe now it might be misused. Well, in actual fact, the best way to misuse a recall campaign, as soon somebody did one, is to start three others. You’re just going to get people not knowing which petitions they’ve signed.

This is actually cleaning up a problem that existed with the GST initiative that went forward and passed — the HST one. What if we had four that were running at the same time? Four initiatives like that? How would that initiative have been successful? There would’ve been many people who signed and said, “I already signed it.” Confusion would abound. That’s commonsense rule 1. Again, B.C. Liberals hate that because it’s not the kind of status quo of their cynical party politics from the past.

Another smart change. We’re getting a prohibition of a recall petition six months before general voting day for a scheduled election. My understanding is that I think there was a recommendation for a year, but this is a compromise from what was actually asked for by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Six months makes sense. It’s kind of ridiculous to be able to have a recall campaign initiated in six months so that after you have the 30 days, you’ve got a few months left. You call a by-election, and the person basically may not even come into the Legislature, or very much. And then you swear him in; you swear him out. Back to the election. It’s consistent, again, with by-election legislation. The six-month time frame is entirely consistent with that.

Makes some positive changes, this act does, to violations of the act. And it provides the Chief Electoral Officer with regulation-making authority. What it’s not doing, despite the fact…. If you listen to members opposite, you’d think the world was going to end. Chicken Little and his or her friends opposite would suggest that the sky is falling. This bill does not provide any new protections for MLAs. It actually creates a level playing field that ensures the interests of British Columbians are front and centre, not vested corporate and union interests.

You know, 40 percent — if people wanted to make this harder, they would’ve pushed it up to 50 percent, to 60 percent. Forty percent — nothing has changed with that requirement, 40 percent of the electorate. It’s a very high threshold, a hard threshold, but it is still the only threshold that exists in Canada. We are the one jurisdiction that has that.

I don’t hear us today saying: “Let’s repeal this legislation.” I don’t hear government today saying: “Oh, let’s make it 60 percent.” I don’t hear government today saying, let’s ban donations. All I hear in this bill is government putting forward a very, very reasonable approach to protect our democracy from the influence of big money and special interests.

To conclude, I have sat here now for, it must be, two weeks listening to members opposite in question period, in speeches. It seems that they have forgotten what it means to govern in this province, what it means to be in opposition. The role of an opposition is not to try to solely argue for everything in terms of trying to actually save a party and get back into power no matter what. It’s about representing the will of the people of British Columbia.

The will of the people of British Columbia is that big money be gone out of politics here.

[Applause.]

Aw, thank you to — I don’t know whether I’m able to acknowledge somebody not sitting in their chair, but to — somebody who normally sits down in the Premier’s chair for the support of this.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Of course, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is shocked that the Premier would support this bill.

What should be shocking to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is the fact that they, their party, are yet again standing up before British Columbians and saying that it is okay for one corporation to donate whatever they want, because they have a grudge against an MLA, to try to out that MLA. Or it’s equally okay for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to go to a corporation and say: “I have a recall campaign against me. Can you give me a million bucks to fund the no campaign.”

He’s essentially arguing that that’s okay. That is the essence of the argument that we have before us. The members opposite think this is funny, but what is funny is their lack of moral compass, the fact that their wind vane is broken. It’s spinning. There’s no direction. There are no values.

British Columbians don’t know what they stand for, apart from trying to get back into power to ensure that their vested corporate interests are at the table, through donations, to actually ensure that their friend’s interest, as opposed to British Columbians’ interests, are put front and centre in this Legislature in decision-making in British Columbia.

With that, I and my colleagues proudly stand in support of this bill, and I look forward to continued debate.

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Premier what his government is doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in British Columbia.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: We’ve talked about the last 16 years. We’ve talked about the 1990s. Let’s talk about the future now. In the second quarter of 2018, British Columbians bought 2,564 electric vehicles, more than three times the amount bought in the previous year. Across our province, dealerships can’t keep EVs on their lots. Backlogs and waiting lists vary from three months to a year, even up to 18 months, and the clean growth strategy to be released later this fall will bring in an aggressive ZEV standard to B.C.

Charging infrastructure remains a barrier for widespread EV adoption, and B.C. Hydro, which has installed a few fast-chargers recently, has done so by giving away the electricity for free. This has led to large lineups as locals get electricity for free while those who need it and those who want to pay for it have to wait in line, hoping to get a charge at some point down the road.

B.C. manufacturing companies like Electra Meccanica, Envirotech Electric Vehicles and Environex Inc. are looking to set up here in British Columbia — manufacturing facilities that want to grow our economy and meet global demand.

My question is to the Premier. What is his government doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in B.C.?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for the question. It’s nice to have forward-looking questions on how we’re going to build a better, stronger British Columbia, how we’re going to meet our objectives with respect to climate action, and I appreciate the question.

First of all, British Columbia does lead the country in charging stations, some 1,500. And now you can travel from Golden…. The member from Golden can travel all the way to Tofino in his electric vehicle and not have to stop and charge. As the member quite rightly says, though, we do have some challenges.

That’s why the B.C. Utilities Commission has opened up a review on their own initiative to ensure that we find a way to get electricity into electric vehicles in a way that’s cost-effective, a way that’s fair to the travelling public and allows us to build even more capacity going forward.

Lastly, I would say, with respect to electric vehicle uptake in the economy, we had to increase…. The Minister of Finance found an additional $10 million to put into the clean energy vehicle program in September because it was already oversubscribed from February. That speaks to demand in the economy. That speaks to a responsive government that’s listening to people and putting in place programs and services that will help them and help all of us meet our climate change objectives.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: As the Premier mentioned, obviously there are nearly 1,500 EV charging stations in British Columbia. Almost all of them give away electricity for free. Some are private; most are not. The free model is rapidly becoming unsustainable as more and more British Columbians move towards EVs.

To sell someone electricity in this province, you must be registered as a public utility unless you get some very-difficult-to-get exemption. Oregon, California, Washington, Ontario, New York and a number of other U.S. states have already exempted EV charging from energy regulation. Resale of electricity is permitted, like a gas station, without prior approval, and prices are set by the market. Of course, safety, consumer protection and other considerations are indeed regulated.

My question, then, to the minister is this. The type of approach that encourages private investment in vehicle-charging infrastructure in British Columbia is exactly the direction we want to go. Will the Premier commit his government to updating B.C.’s regulatory environment for EV charging stations immediately after receiving the recommendations from the B.C. Utilities Commission report he referred to?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his interest and passion on this subject. I also want to say that we are utilizing the B.C. Utilities Commission, unlike the previous government that sidelined this very useful regulatory body. We’re using the B.C. Utilities Commission to determine the best way forward.

The member is quite correct. He’s looked into this diligently. We do have some challenges with respect to giving away energy in some places and overcharging in others. A regulatory framework that meets the needs of the travelling public and allows us to meet our climate objectives over time is the right way forward.

I look forward — as all members, I’m sure, do — to the Utilities Commission reporting back in the fall — or in the next number of weeks, I expect — on their proposals going forward.

But I also want to touch on another component of the question that the member asked and that is how can we incent and attract the development of, the creation of construction and the implementation of a program that has a clean, green, innovative tinge to it. That would be left to the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of Jobs, Training and Technology, who appointed the first innovation commissioner in B.C.’s history so that we can have an economy that works for everybody and looks forward, not backward, like the people on the other side.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 41: Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill repeals the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, brought in by the BC Liberals in 2002. The original version of the bill included language stripping class size and composition rights from teachers’ collective bargaining.

That version led to the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation going on strike, and created a decade-and-a-half long dispute ending with the legislative change being deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Once the original version of the bill received royal assent the School Act amendments came into force. This is why they are no longer seen in the present version.

The powers granted to postsecondary institutions that remain in the original version have never been used. Nevertheless, in light of the recent Supreme Court of Canada BCTF decision, if a postsecondary institution were to invoke the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, it is likely it would be deemed unconstitutional, as it is very similar language to what has already been deemed unconstitutional.

Below are the text and video of my second reading speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act.

As the minister mentioned, this act repeals the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that was brought in under the previous government in 2002.

Within the language of that bill brought in in 2002, restrictions were removed, in particular the clause:

Despite any other Act or a collective agreement, an institution has the right to

(a) establish the size of its classes, the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a semester, a term or an academic year,

(b) assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,

(c) determine its hours of operation and the number and duration of terms or semesters during which instruction is offered to students,

(d) allocate professional development time and vacation time to facilitate its organization of instruction, and

(e) provide support for faculty members, including, but not limited to, teaching assistants, senior students, contractors and support staff members.

This legislation, brought to 2002, was fortunately never actually challenged and never actually used, because universities and colleges recognize that the governance style within these academic post-secondary institutions is more of a collegial form of governance, one in which an academic environment is governed by the senate, where there is input from faculty and staff and students in terms of the academic direction of an institution.

What was very troubling, of course, is that when this act was introduced, it also amended sections of the School Act, which stripped teachers’ bargaining rights — or when the prior act was a similar thing — related to class size and composition.

Remember the infamous Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, which started major labour disputes in our province with health care workers. Again, that was also implemented at the same time. It was rather a classic example of a pendulum that swings, when we have governments shift from one to the other side of the political spectrum.

If ever there was a compelling testimony as to why proportional representation is important, it’s that it limits these kinds of pendulum swings because of the fact that we typically don’t go from one extreme to the other. In this example, we’re going back to legislation coming in, being repealed. Of course, this should never have been brought in, in the first place.

With the B.C. Teachers Federation, of the examples I just raised, that dispute lasted for a decade and a half. How much money, how many hours lost, how much stress put on teachers, how much education was not delivered because of time being put to this because of, frankly, punitive measures that were brought forward by the previous government to the employees within the education sector, whether it be K-to-12 or post-second institutions?

The amendments to the School Act that were brought in with the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act were poorly thought out. It was legislation that caused, as I mentioned, a decade of turmoil, including the longest strike in BCTF’s history, in 2014, when I was on the other side there. It was based, frankly, on ideology that the government of the day doubled down on as it lost decision after decision, until it went to the Supreme Court, which, only for a few minutes, deliberated before they ruled unanimously on the direction that this should take.

I remember, frankly, three years ago standing in this House and speaking about the approach of the previous government toward education. At that time, I said that moving the relationship forward between the BCTF and the government would require trust — mutual trust. It was easy, of course, for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education were leery to trust the direction of the previous government.

At the time, I was arguing that the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the government was providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Needless to say, that was not building trust. It was a classic example of the previous government’s approach.

Instead of working to build trust, the previous administration spent years fighting the BCTF — and countless dollars in doing so — creating labour disputes, court battles and strikes until finally the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the BCTF.

They won their challenge because the legislative changes infringed on B.C. teachers’ freedom of association, guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I use this example because the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that this bill is repealing here today — that is, Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act — has very similar language, which I read out earlier, very similar language in it, which, in theory, could render key sections in collective agreements with post-secondary educators void.

Coming to a specific example in the previous bill, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, which is being repealed, it states here, as well: “Despite any other Act or collective agreement, an institution has the right to…assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,” and to establish class sizes and “the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member….”

The total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member — this shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how universities operate.

I taught at a university for 25 years before coming here. I had PhD students and master’s students. To think, here, that somehow government was enabling that my institution could tell me how many PhD students I could supervise…. Who’s going to pay them? We have departmental policy that requires us to find money to pay our students. What about if I was no longer active in research, and on and on. It just showed such a fundamental misunderstanding.

But in fact, in 2007, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators noted this, and they stated that this act overruled provisions of their collective agreements that dealt with class size. At the same time, their statement read as follows. This is the statement that they read: “Although we have succeeded in preventing post-secondary employers from using the legislation, today’s decision adds to our case that the legislation should be scrapped all together.” That was with respect to a ruling, one of the many rulings that came in the BCTF’s favour.

The Public Flexibility and Choice Act has still not been used to this day, thank goodness. But if it were to be used, I cringe to think of the disputes it would cause, and the subsequent legal challenges that could arise.

Now, I recognize that this legislation, which is still on the books, is a blight on the previous government, is a blight on the official opposition, which is why it seems that there are no speakers to this at second reading, and that they’ll accept it, and quickly, apart from one just saying, in a matter of moments, that they’ll accept it.

We’re not getting a detailed discussion and rationale on why this was brought in, in the first place. Why was this brought in, in the first place? We have members sitting opposite who’ve been in the B.C. Legislature since 2002, when, in fact, this legislation was brought. Rather than simply giving us a history, rather than telling us why it was brought in and why they’re now supporting it, all they say is we support repealing it, in essence.

I recognize this is a blight. It’s a shameful blight on 16 years of actually not putting education as a priority in this province. This bill before us today is seeking to remove the controversial piece of legislation, which, fortunately, has never been used before, and, frankly, if it were, would almost certainly have triggered legal challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada, where, once again, it would’ve been deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the legacy that the new government has to deal with. It is repealing legislation that, yet again, would almost certainly have been unconstitutional. My caucus and I are 100 percent behind this bill, and with that, I thank you for your attention.

Video of Speech

True to form, the BC Liberals once more stood up today and voted against taking big money out of BC Politics. Recall last year they also voted against taking big money out of our provincial election campaigns. This time it was at First Reading of Bill 53: Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. This bill aligns advertising and financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act.

I’m not sure what, if anything, the BC Liberals have learned since the last election. British Columbians were well and truly fed up with the “wild west” of BC political financing: Any person, union or corporation anywhere in the world was able to donate any amount of money to any political party any time they wanted.

Bill 53 complements Bill 3: Election Amendment Act, 2017 and Bill 15: Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017 which were passed last year to ensure provincial, local government and school board elections were free from the influence of big money.

Below I reproduce the press release my office issued on this topic.

Media Release

Weaver: Taking big money out of recall campaigns will strengthen our democracy
For immediate release
October 30, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, today commended the government’s legislation that would take big money out of recall campaigns. Weaver says the legislation builds on the work the B.C. NDP government and his Caucus are doing to make the B.C. political system more responsive to voters rather than special interests.

“Recall campaigns should be about making politicians accountable to their constituents – not to making them subject to big money-funded hit jobs,” said Weaver.

“These rules will apply to both proponents of recall campaigns and politicians who are attempting to stay in power. This legislation will ensure that a sufficiently motivated electorate is able to recall their elected officials, without risking the process being corroded by the influence of big money. Politicians should be accountable to voters – plain and simple. Unions, corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals should not have a disproportionate say in our democracy, whether they support the elected official or the recall effort in any given campaign.

“I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the B.C. Liberals voted against this legislation. This is the same party that refused to act while our province was internationally derided as the “wild west” of political fundraising, only to make a 180 reversal in their summer 2017 throne speech in a desperate attempt to cling onto power. They continue to fail to understand that democracy should reflect the views of citizens as equal members of society, not the ability of special interests to pay more.”

-30-

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