On October 8 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a landmark report entitled Global Warming of 1.5 °C. The report highlighted the ongoing and imminent dangers of global warming and noted that “Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

The House of Commons in Ottawa held an emergency debate yesterday on the topic of global warming. Today I rose pursuant to Standing Order 35 requesting an emergency debate also be held in the BC Legislature.

The Speaker granted my request.

Below I reproduce the videos and text of me both requesting the debate and subsequently participating in it. I also reproduce our accompanying media release.

Video: Standing Order 35 request for debate

Text: Standing Order 35 request for debate

A. Weaver: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35 to make the following motion. By leave, I move that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, that in light of the recent IPCC special report on global warming and in light of the federal emergency debate on this subject which occurred yesterday, whether we as legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province.

Video of speech

Text of speech

A. Weaver: Pursuant to the agreement regarding my application under Standing Order 35, I rise to move the following motion. By leave, I move:

[That this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, that in light of the recent IPCC special report on global warming and in light of the Federal emergency debate on this subject which occurred yesterday, whether we as legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province.]

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, for allowing this emergency debate to take place. I note that my two colleagues in the B.C. Green Party and I will each have the floor for a few minutes, and we’ll divvy up the topics that we’d like to cover here. I’ll speak to my background in science. My colleague the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands will speak about our responsibility, and my colleague the MLA for Cowichan Valley will focus on opportunity and, where possible, hope.

This is the first week the Legislature has convened since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report was released. Three expert IPCC working groups issued a dire and urgent warning to governments around the world, including our own, arguing that we must immediately ramp up our efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees or face serious and irreversible consequences.

I know a little bit about the IPCC, having serviced as a lead author in that regard for the last four international assessments, and it was a proud moment for me to see a former post-doc and PhD student serving on the recent panel’s committee report.

Over the last 150 years, Earth has made a transition from the past, when climate affected the evolution of human societies, to the present, in which humans are affecting the evolution of climate and weather. Today we are at a pivotal moment in human history. Our generation will be responsible for deciding what path the future climate will take. You and I, as elected officials, will either be complicit in allowing climate change to despoil our world or we can lead the way and choose a new future

As a climate scientist, a lead author on four previous IPCC assessments, I know that it is my moral responsibility to speak about climate change as clearly and accurately as possible. I do not aim to alarm but need to emphasize the severity of the threat that lies ahead, because it is so often underestimated.

The current state of B.C.’s climate and environment is not “the new normal,” as many have been saying. “Normal” implies a plateau and consistency. We are not facing a plateau. We are on the edge of a very steep downward trend, and I’m sad to say that this is just the beginning.

Over hundreds of millions of years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, together with global temperatures, dropped slowly as carbon was stored slowly in the sediments of the deep ocean and the great gas, oil and coal reserves of today were formed. Yet in a matter of just a few decades, the carbon drawn down over many tens of millions of years is being released back to the atmosphere. In a single generation, humans are taking atmospheric conditions back to that which existed during the age of the dinosaurs. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range over the last million years, and it’s still rising quickly.

Metaphorically, we’re piling more blankets on an overheated planet. The hotter it gets, the more symptoms, if you will, humans will experience. If global emissions do not start to dramatically decline in the next few years, many millions of people, including British Columbians, will be at risk from heat waves, droughts, floods, storms and wildfires. Our coasts and cities will be threatened by a rising sea level. Many ecosystems, plants and animals will face widespread extinction, including most of the world’s coral reef systems.

This is not new information. Scientists have been raising concerns about what their data has been showing for years, for decades, for more than a century. In fact, in 1938, Guy Callendar made a presentation to the Royal Society of London that claimed (1) that humans had increased the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, (2) that increased CO₂ could cause an increase in global temperatures and (3) that global temperatures were rising.

In the early 1800s, Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier was the very first to recognize that the atmosphere was essentially transparent to incoming radiation from the sun but was very effective at blocking outgoing radiation to the solar system, thereby creating a greenhouse effect. In the mid-1800s, John Tyndall, a British scientist, was the first to be able to determine that different greenhouse gases absorbed, preferentially, different wavelengths of infrared radiation.

In 1957, Roger Revelle and Hans Suess, from the University of California, warned that the oceans could not absorb the human emissions of carbon dioxide as fast as they were being produced. They stated, in their seminal work: “Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future…. We are returning, to the atmosphere and oceans, the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years.”

On and on it goes, in the 1980s, with the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Said the Academy of Sciences: “We’re deeply concerned about the magnitude of environmental changes.” They noted: “We may get in trouble in ways that we have barely imagined.” The Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. said this: “Agricultural conditions will be significantly altered, environmental and economic systems potentially disrupted, and political institutions stressed. Changes by the end of the 21st century could be catastrophic, taken in the context of today’s world. A soberness and a sense of urgency underlie our response to a greenhouse warming.”

This is not new scientific information, as I’ve said. What is new, however, is how urgent and how dire the scientific warnings have become. What’s remarkable, when you look at this issue compared to every other environmental issue out there, is that the people speaking loudest, strongest and most frequently are the scientists themselves — out of concern for the direction we are taking our planet.

In recent years, the consequences of rising carbon dioxide and temperatures have become painfully clear. We’re on target to take ocean surface acidity into a realm for which we have no comparison in the history of Earth. Coral beds that have been around for millions of years are going extinct on a widespread basis. In Canada, overall precipitation will increase, but it’ll come in fewer and more extreme events interspersed between longer periods of drought. There’ll be an increased risk of flooding and wildfire, and we’ve seen that in British Columbia two years in a row.

At the rate we’re going, we’re looking at between 20 and 50 percent of the world’s species, almost certainly including the iconic Fraser River sockeye and Canada’s polar bear, becoming committed to extinction this century. As temperatures warm, salmon will have increased mortality rates as they struggle through hot waters to their spawning grounds. In southern regions, streams will dry up.

Think for a moment about a massive crop failure, economic collapse and millions of climate refugees desperate for safer homes. Our growing consumption levels are unsustainable on an earth with finite resources, and the limit is clearly in view.

Think about whatever issue you care about most as an MLA in British Columbia — economic growth, affordability, health care, education, poverty, transportation, agriculture, reconciliation, child care, housing, resource development, fisheries, forestry, safety, security, prosperity, family. Every single one will be undermined and endangered by unmitigated climate change.

I know that this can sound scary, an overwhelming proposition. It’s a normal human reaction to resist change and instead try to preserve the status quo. But the IPCC report, the one released this last weekend, tells us exactly where this leads.

We need to start now to build a new way of life. It can be a shift that provides economic opportunities like this province has never seen. By tackling climate change seriously, with carefully designed policies, B.C.’s economy can grow in new ways. We can prosper in a time of crisis, but it requires us to be honest with ourselves. In your work and mine, it is important we keep the spotlight on the stark and alarming reality of climate change and not get lost in the everyday bustle or the fog of November’s rain.

The time for “yes but” arguments — yes, but other people emit more, or yes, but other industries are worse, or yes, but B.C. is small, and this is a global problem — has passed. We now need “yes and” arguments. Yes, other people emit more. Yes, other industries will always be worse. And yes, B.C. is small compared to the world, and yet, we will do our part. As much as we may wish, we don’t have jurisdiction over the world, but we have influence in B.C., where we live. That is what is important.

This is an all-of-government issue, so it needs to be an all-government solution — every ministry, every MLA, every riding, every sector. We need everyone to look at the area they have influence on and think about how they can make positive change in the context of a warming world.

As the IPCC special report makes painfully clear, we only have a few short years left to steer away from catastrophic climate change. Choosing to take action is a luxury set to expire; soon, we will be forced. We must not squander this opportunity.

Thank you, again, to everyone in this chamber for allowing this emergency debate to take place.

Media Release

Weaver to move motion on emergency debate on climate change
For immediate release
October 16, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, will move a motion in the B.C. Legislature to hold a one-hour emergency debate on climate change tonight in the B.C. Legislature at 5:30pm this evening. The B.C. Greens called for an emergency debate this morning, following a similar debate in the Parliament of Canada last night.

“It’s time for a whole-of-government approach to mitigating the effects of climate change,” said Weaver.

“The potential calamity caused by climate change is avoidable. By refusing to create a plan to facilitate a gradual, managed transition, Canada is missing out on economic opportunities, as well as the ability to leverage the transition to make life more affordable for people.

“Canadians are highly educated, innovative and entrepreneurial – we can do far better than the race-to-the-bottom raw commodity economics of yesteryear. Instead, we should be putting our full attention towards championing clean growth and the value-added low-carbon industries that will undoubtedly be the drivers of economic growth as the world comes together to meet our targets.”

Sonia Furstenau, Deputy Leader, urged the other Members of the Legislative Assembly to recognize the human impacts of climate change.

“Climate change is not only an environmental issue – it’s a human rights issue,” said Furstenau.

“The effects of climate change will hit the most disadvantaged in our society hardest and first. We are already facing a crisis of inequality, both within Canada and across the globe. Any compassionate government that purports to care about people’s wellbeing must take immediate action to meet our emissions reduction targets, as well as to assist communities to adapt to the effects of climate change that are already beginning to take hold. If we act with urgency, we can couple strong climate policies with an approach that will also improve the health and wellbeing of the people we serve.”

Implementing a climate plan to meet B.C.’s legislated emissions reductions targets is a key component of the B.C. Green Party Caucus’ Confidence and Supply Agreement with the B.C. NDP minority government. Weaver is working closely with the government towards introducing that plan, the Clean Growth Strategy, later this year.

-30-

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

In question period today I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how she could possibly justify her government’s rhetoric concerning the magnitude of LNG Canada’s potential investment in BC. What I find particularly ironic is that for the last four years the B.C. NDP criticized the B.C. Liberals for using over-the-top exaggerations and hyperbolic language when referring to LNG. I was extraordinarily disappointed in the Minister’s responses to my questions.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Two weeks ago the province issued a press release heralding a $40 billion investment by LNG Canada. However, the government’s release provided no clarity about whether this investment was for the full plant, the full buildout, or just phase 1, consisting of two trains. In contrast, LNG Canada’s release, on the same day, clarified that the final investment decision was only for two trains but made no claim whatsoever about the size of the investment that’s represented.

To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, can the minister please clarify, for the record, whether the investment that government was celebrating in its press release constituted two or four trains, and if it is only for two, whether a separate FID process would play out for additional trains at a later date?

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: I was very proud to be in attendance at the announcement two weeks ago. I think this historic event of a $40 billion investment in British Columbia and Canada is actually a very non-partisan event.

I was happy to see members from the other side who were also there, because British Columbians — whether in my riding or in that of the member from Aldergrove–Fort Langley, the member for Parksville-Qualicum or the member for Peace River North — are all going to be able to benefit from this, because $23 billion of revenue is going to be coming back to British Columbia to fund child care, to fund education, to fund post-secondary education and to be able to fund our climate goals.

Now, I know members of the B.C. Liberal Party have mischaracterized our position for many, many years. That was to their benefit to do so. It was to their benefit to do so, but let’s put partisan politics aside, if they can.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that’s hard for them, but if they could, we could acknowledge that that $40 billion investment, that historic investment for this country, for this province, is an FID — to answer the member’s question — for the entire project. That project, like I said, is going to be beneficial to British Columbians — 10,000 jobs during the construction phase, 950 jobs in northern British Columbia. First Nations are benefiting; local communities are benefiting. That is good for B.C.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Well, thank you, Minister. That was a very simple question, and I can take it, from that answer, that the minister actually doesn’t know, which is quite shocking.

I’d like to dig a little deeper into the $40 billion investment rhetoric. The federal environmental assessment application shows low and high estimates of $25 billion and $40 billion for the project. However, according to this application, these estimates are for both phases of the LNG project for Kitimat. That’s four trains, not two trains.

When we turn to the provincial government’s own environmental assessment report, we find that the investment for phase 1 — that’s the two trains — is projected to be $13 billion to $21 billion, or half the number that the government highlighted in its press release.

Furthermore, it gets worse. In the assessment report of the B.C. government, it points out that for phase 1 costs, only about 20 percent of that will actually be spent in B.C. That would bring the number down to $2½ billion to $4.1 billion, a far cry from the $40 billion touted in the media.

To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, how do we reconcile the headlines in the government’s own press release with the environmental assessment reports that underpin the project, given that the minister has, I think, sort of clarified that the $40 billion is for four trains as opposed to two? It has to be, based on her own documents. Finally, after years of listening to the B.C. NDP criticize the B.C. Liberals for using over-the-top exaggerations and hyperbolic language when referring to LNG, does the minister not see the hypocrisy unfolding before us?

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: As I said, this was a historic day two weeks ago. People all over British Columbia were celebrating it, particularly people in the north. The mayor of Kitimat, who is ecstatic to see the potential of 950 permanent jobs in his community, was there. The chief councillor for the Haisla Nation, Crystal Smith, was there. She saw how important this is for her community, as does the member from Kitimat.

He knows very well how important this is. He has spent many, many years working on this project and knows exactly the benefits that are going to be going to his community as well as throughout British Columbia, particularly in the north. This government was proud to be there two weeks ago and to be working with LNG Canada to get that FID.

Yesterday in the BC Legislature we debated Bill 40: Electoral Reform Referendum Amendment Act. This bill requires a second referendum to occur, should the proportional representation referendum pass, after two general elections conducted under proportional representation. It gives the electorate a chance to determine whether or not they want to stay with the new system of proportional representation.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech in support of the bill. I was very surprised to listen to the BC Liberals strongly oppose it. Whether you are in support of, or opposed to, proportional representation, it seems to me that it is important to give British Columbians a say in their democracy.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Well, that certainly was half an hour of righteous indignation on display for us today. I had not planned to start my speech with this quote, but I think I will, because it’s fitting after the member from the Langley area just went on that diatribe.

This is a quote from a video by Justin Greenwood, named the interim deputy leader of the B.C. Conservative Party. This is with reference to Bill 40, which is before us, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, and which is, in essence, adding a new, second referendum to elections after now, within 13 months, to validate, if proportional representation passes, that British Columbians want to stay with the system.

This is what Justin Greenwood said, and I think it’s apt and fitting for me to read this into the record. On a video available on YouTube, he said this on behalf of the B.C. Conservative Party:

“As a party, we have chosen not to take a stance on the referendum at this time, other than to ensure our membership and fellow British Columbians have the information needed to make their choice. I felt it necessary to make this video because of the vote ‘no’ side, which is mostly supported by” — he used the name; it’s the Leader of the Official Opposition — “the B.C. Liberals by using fearmongering tactics laced with misleading statements in order to tell you how to vote. This is solely because if prop rep passes, their party will implode. It’s purely for self-preservation purposes only.

“Those attributes and tactics are not the ones I would support in a party leader, let alone someone who is assuming to be the next Premier of British Columbia. Indeed, the Leader of the Official Opposition should be helping spread the information needed for British Columbians to make an educated vote on an electoral system that suits them best, a choice you can make by using your freedom and agency.

“The Liberals have stated that the ballot is very confusing and lacks direction. Luckily,” he says, “I’ve gathered an elite team of problem-solvers which consists of a crossword puzzle superstar, a word search champion and a sudoku master to help crack the code of the confusing ballot.“

Therein, he went on to show quite clearly how easy it is for British Columbians to read the ballot.

I, frankly, am shocked at the language I’m hearing from members opposite. I’m shocked that they have so little respect for the intelligence of British Columbians that they feel they need to try to mislead, to fearmonger and to stand up and ensure that they vote the way the B.C. Liberals want them to vote, without actually trusting that British Columbians might actually be interested in learning.

What’s also remarkable about what I’m hearing is…. If I take you back to the throne speech of June 22, 2017, this is what the B.C. Liberal throne speech said. It said the following:

“The results that British Columbians delivered in the May election require cooperation. Your government is committed to working with all parties in the Legislature.

“Following referenda in 2005 and 2009, there remains a desire by many members in this place to revisit electoral reform.

“With the confidence of this House, your government will enable a third referendum on electoral reform. It will require extensive public consultation to develop a clear question and will ensure rural representation in the Legislature is protected.

“It is vital that the referendum reflect the views of British Columbians, not just its political parties.“

This is precisely the process that government has gone through over the last many months in an unprecedented consultative process leading to, I believe, 91,000-some-odd submissions — incredible consultation. What’s remarkable, too, is that we hear the rhetoric emanating from members opposite. Let me take you back a few months to what these same members, two of whom have already spoken, said in response to the throne speech.

Here, for example, the member for Richmond-Steveston, who hasn’t spoken yet, said in response:

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized in recent years. We held referendums” — it’s grammatically incorrect; it should be “referenda” — “on electoral reform in 2005 and 2009 — both times of particular importance to me because I was either a candidate or seeking re-election as a member of this assembly. The discussion around electoral system is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy debate on our system is important. That’s why we have committed to a third referendum on electoral reform.“

That’s the member for Richmond-Steveston arguing passionately for another referendum on electoral reform.

Here’s what the member for Chilliwack-Kent said:

“We said that the people of British Columbia will decide that question, and we will provide a path to that decision point. I have no problem with that.“

The member for Abbotsford-Mission said the following:

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized by our time in government. The discussion about electoral reform will allow us to open up that dialogue, and it’s been a source of discussion around the province. Our government is addressing that. It’s something we make a top priority.

“We are also looking,” he went on to say, “at electoral reform. Electoral reform, I know, is something that is of particular interest to our friends….

“We’re going to develop another referendum and develop a clear question, which reflects the needs of British Columbia, but protecting key populations and ensuring that rural areas are treated fairly here in the assembly….“

Precisely what government has done.

How about the member for Penticton? He says the following:

“We know that if there is a reform that takes place in the future on how people are able to govern out of this wonderful building…. There is a promise that has been put forward for electoral reform no later than November 30, 2018. I hope we work together” — I love those words — “through that extensive consultation that should take place, to develop a clear question that British Columbians can understand….“

Sidebar. Do you want…? And this is part of the parody in the interim B.C. Conservative deputy leader’s video. He shows the ballot. “The question is, basically: do you want proportional representation, or do you want to stay with first-past-the-post? Yes or no?” Pretty clear, if you ask me.

This question, in this other referendum, Bill 40 — we haven’t seen the exact wording — will essentially be: do you want to stay with the system we just went through, assuming that prop rep passes? These are pretty clear questions.

Coming back to what the member for Penticton said, he said:

“A clear question that British Columbians could understand and can see that it is 100 percent in its meaning and depth and also that not only protects urban areas but also protects the rural areas of British Columbia. I think that’s really important, because sometimes rural B.C. is forgotten.“

I agree with the member for Penticton. In fact, that is being reflected in the options that have been put forward.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who was over the top with his enthusiasm — opposite — for this referendum today, rhetoric that’s screaming out of the windows and off the ramparts, said the following in the throne speech:

“We are committed to enabling a third referendum with a clear question and absolute protection for rural representation.“

Seemed okay at the time.

The critic, the member for Vancouver-Langara, who spoke first in this debate, said:

“For many, it’s important that we conduct a third referendum on electoral reform to give British Columbians an opportunity to consider, once again, what is the best electoral system for the province and its people. Again, we listened, and we’ve acted.”

On and on and on it went in the response to the B.C. Liberal throne speech — quite frankly remarkable. You would never have known it, given the vitriol that was thrown government’s way today.

Again, coming back to the interim deputy leader of the B.C. Conservative Party, Justin Greenwood, he says it all. He says…. Here again it summarizes the reason why he felt he needed to speak. He needed to speak out because he felt that: “The B.C. Liberals are using fearmongering tactics laced with misleading statements in order to tell you how to vote, and this is solely because if prop rep passes, their party will implode. It’s purely for self-preservation purposes only. Those are not the attributes and the tactics that one would want in a leader.”

I’ve listened to the arguments. I’ve attended a debate with the member for Richmond-Queensborough, a debate on prop representation. I’ve listened to the no side. What saddens me is that these debates — not the case of the member for Richmond-Queensborough; he did a very fine presentation — are not constrained by facts.

Even today, we heard statements of truth that are nothing more than conjecture, fearmongering about boundaries. I don’t know what the boundary is going to be for my riding if there’s a first-past-the-post election in 2021, because Elections B.C. periodically reviews the boundaries. I found out that I had parts of Victoria in this election not too long before this past election. It happens all the time that we look at electoral boundaries.

They talk about rural B.C. and “can’t draw maps.” Well, in fact, if they actually read the document, you would see that it’s quite clearly outlined about how ridings would likely double in size. You basically bring two neighbouring ridings together in most of the cases, with the exception of the rural-urban one, where you would have slightly different changes. It’s very clearly described what would happen there.

It’s also very clearly outlined as to how a process would go forward to determine open versus closed lists. My own preference is open list. Open list is my preference. They, the members opposite, seem to suggest that somehow it’s pre-decided that it must be closed list, that somehow there’s party elite that are going to be put in to become Premier without ever being elected.

In the world, there are — I’m not counting Myanmar and Venezuela — only a couple of examples of western democracies that still retain first-past-the-post: the United States and Canada. Even in Great Britain, Scotland is on a form of proportional representation, whereas England is not. New Zealand. Australia, in the Senate, and it has a preferential balloting system in the House. Virtually every single democracy in the world has a got a form of proportional representation.

Heck, the latest result in Bavaria showed a doubling of support of the Green Party there, a surge of support in the Green Party in Bavaria, a state within Germany that has proportional representation. Prince Edward Island went through the referendum. It passed. They decided not to do it.

B.C. has the potential here of being a leader in Canada if the people of British Columbia want it to change. It’s very simple. Do you want to change or not? If it changes, two elections from now, there’ll be another referendum to say: “Do you like what you saw? Shall we keep it?”

We go back to the New Zealand example. The ballot here in British Columbia is very similar to the ballot that was done in New Zealand when they went for proportional representation.

I can tell you, from somebody working in the Legislature in a minority government, that it is hard working with another party. It is not easy at all when you come together with very different backgrounds and ideas. But you get better policy, better public policy, when you’re forced to collaborate, forced to listen. Sometimes you have to give more than you want, and sometimes you get to take more than you thought you would get. But it’s about collaboration and cooperation. It can get testy at times. People can be firm in their positions.

But good public policy arises when politicians are forced to work together, and we’ve been demonstrating that here in this Legislature for the last 18 months or so, much to the chagrin of members opposite, who can’t fathom the fact that different political parties can actually work together.

Instead, they have to create some fearmongering approach that somehow the world as we know it is going to end and evoking the raiding of Normandy, for heaven’s sake. I mean, this is just so offensive — evoking the troops in Normandy as somehow being affronted. One member opposite talked about how the people who made the greatest sacrifice wouldn’t be able to vote. Of course they can’t vote. They’re not here today. They made the sacrifice. The rhetoric that was coming was just outrageous.

This is really about a referendum, and do we trust the people of British Columbia, as we have twice before in two votes on the single transferable vote? Do we trust them to have enough information? Do we trust them to be able to determine what’s in their best interests? The B.C. Liberals don’t. They don’t trust British Columbians to actually think for themselves. It’s not the B.C. Liberal way. The B.C. Liberal way is: “We’ll tell you because we know best. Not only that. It’s a small section of us — the elite in the party.” Even the backbenchers: “We’ll tell you the way it is, and it shall be that way.” This is what we’re seeing modelled here in the objections of the members opposite to this referendum.

Remarkable. Even if they didn’t like proportional representation, why would they not support this? This is giving British Columbians a way out if they don’t like it. Even if you don’t…. Again, I understand that there are 17 years of nefarious kinds of activities and backroom deals and conniving. For them, everything that’s done has to have a Machiavellian outcome. I recognize they think that this is some kind of Machiavellian approach to actually influence things. How about: it’s actually listening to what people have said? People have actually said they wanted a chance to have an election.

Have they ever thought that maybe government is listening to people? I know that the B.C. Liberals had a difficult time listening to people, but here we have a government listening to people, bringing in legislation that says: “You know what? If you do vote for this system and you don’t like it, we will give you a way out two years from now.”

I’ve heard so many examples of misinformation being put forward on this referendum. For example, I’ve heard people say that somehow party elites will choose who’s coming in. Well, let me tell you right now, if you were in a number of ridings in British Columbia where you could essentially run anybody from a particular party and you know they will get elected, the person who actually gets appointed is from the party. It is the party right now that already determines which members represent that party in certain ridings. In some ridings, getting the actual nomination from the party is pretty much a shoo-in to being elected. So right now….

Frankly, we just have to go back to the referendum when the Premier at the time lost her seat in Vancouver–Point Grey and was parachuted into Kelowna West, where she was able to get a seat. This is already happening in terms of the claims that the members opposite are making.

The other things that they have said are things like: “Well, you’ll lose local representation.” The irony — to hear that coming from the members opposite about losing local representation. How do the people in the Okanagan feel right now, knowing that there is not a single MLA sitting on the government side? Not very good about that, I can tell you. How do you think the people of the Okanagan, who didn’t agree with government policy, felt — not ever having somebody sitting on the opposition side for the previous 17 years? Not very happy.

While some of these Liberal MLAs might think that they represent all people, I can tell you, as an MLA serving the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, that I was inundated from emails, from constituents in Liberal ridings, because their MLAs would not take on the issues because they contravened the political party of the day’s policy.

This isn’t about access to health care systems. You know, maybe you have a person who needs help accessing. All constituency offices work in that regard. This is about…. Perhaps there’s an overpass in a region where there’s a concern for a natural ecosystem, and the MLA for the area is not willing to actually entertain meetings with concerned citizens. They come to us.

If, in these regions, you had representation from both opposition and government, you’d actually get better local representation. The Okanagan. Pick nine MLAs who are serving in the Okanagan right now. You probably would have had…. Of those nine, five of them would have been B.C. Liberal. Three of them would have been B.C. NDP, and one of them would have been B.C. Green. The Okanagan would be served by members in opposition, members in the Green and also members in the government. Healthy for democracy.

Vancouver Island right now has but one representative in Parksville-Qualicum. There is nobody in opposition from the Victoria region, and prior to that, there was nobody in government in the capital regional district. That’s wrong. Liberals in the capital regional district need representation. They need representation in this Legislature, but they don’t have it.

Again, it comes back to what was so succinctly pointed out by Mr. Greenwood, the B.C. Conservative Party interim deputy leader, who essentially says: “The fear is really an internal fear that the B.C. Liberals know that their loosey-goosey coalition of conservatives and liberals is going to fall apart.”

To be honest, there’s hardly any Liberals left, actually, over on that side, but that’s okay because they’ve been…. I know there’s one over there. I know there’s one.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I do have a lot of time for that one federal Liberal over there. But there’s not many left in that party.

This would be healthy for democracy. It would be healthy for there to be a party that actually represented the views, the prevailing views, of people in the Fraser Valley, front and centre when issues come up that they feel are not being dealt with. It would be healthy for people to feel like their views in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and elsewhere were actually represented in a manner that puts…. Not having to be diffused by competing interests, by certain ridings here and certain ridings there, but are actually able to speak out passionately for these issues in both opposition and in government.

If you’re an opposition MLA, you can speak out directly. If you’re in government, you can’t speak out directly. It’s much more difficult.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I like the chippery over there.

I understand that the Liberals….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s 8:30, true. Whose idea was this to go till nine o’clock?

Coming back to the point, much of the information that has been put forward, I fear, is actually doing the no side an actual great disservice. I have talked to many people, and people feel very suspicious as to information that they can quickly check today themselves on the Internet to be factually incorrect.

When factually incorrect information is put forward, it does a disservice — talks about these splinter parties somehow rising out of nowhere when you need to have 5 percent of the vote in order to actually get representation. Again, a misrepresentation that is being put there.

People have talked about the fact that there would be party lists — that all these people will just be appointed from backroom deals. Misrepresentation there.

People talk about loss of local representation. Again, misrepresentation there, because you have the constituents. People somehow think that this is unique in the world when, again, what’s different is actually the fact that in British Columbia we are very much unlike the rest of the world where forms of proportional representation exist.

With that, I really, truly cannot understand why members opposite…. I feel they have lost their moral compass. Why they would not vote in support of a bill that actually gives British Columbians a choice to go back to the system if they don’t like proportional representation and it passed is really mind-boggling to me. I wish I could understand it. I look forward to some more of the commentary coming our way in the debates of this bill.

Video of Speech

Today in the BC Legislature the BC NDP introduced Bill 45: Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018. This 104 page bill fleshes out the government’s intentions with respect to their now termed Speculation and Vacancy Tax.

Below I reproduce the press release my office issued in response to the tabling of this bill. Clearly I have not had a chance to go through the detailed legislation. I’ll be providing a more thorough assessment once I have had a chance to digest it.

Media Release

For immediate release
Weaver statement on speculation tax legislation
October 16, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, is reviewing the government’s speculation tax legislation before determining his next steps on the issue. Weaver has raised three main concerns with the speculation tax to date, namely that the tax should treat all Canadians equally, that local government need to have a more direct role, and that the tax shouldn’t unfairly target homeowners who aren’t speculators.

“I still have concerns that Canadians are not being treated equally and that there is an insufficient role for local governments in determining what happens in their communities,” said Weaver.

“Addressing the affordability crisis is a key shared priority between our Caucus and the government. We also agree that tackling speculation in our housing market is one of the best ways we can make a difference. However, I have been clear that the government’s approach on this particular piece of legislation is not the one I would have taken.

“I have been raising numerous examples of homeowners who are not speculators who are being unfairly impacted by this tax, and I will be looking to see whether government has addressed these concerns. In addition, I have raised concerns about the impact of this tax on land under development and its implementation in stratas with no-rental clauses.

“Now that the bill is before the house, I am able to review it in detail and determine a path forward. My office is in ongoing discussions with government and will explore how my concerns can be addressed.”

-30-

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

Today and yesterday during committee stage for Bill 36: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3) a debate ensued regarding the process by which college and university boards are populated. I provided some further detail in my second reading speech.

The first three sections of the bill dealt with streamlining the process of board appointees for staff and faculty representatives. Initially, I had some questions about the rationale for these changes and so I sought a briefing from the Ministry. It turned out that the changes brought British Columbia in line with what is already in place in every other province in the country other than Alberta.

The official opposition (BC Liberals) were relentless in their attack on the Minister by suggesting that somehow the proposed amendments were enabling conflict of interest situations to arise. The Minister was somewhat testy in her response to many of the questions and I felt that a more thorough unpacking of the issue was warranted.

Below I provide the text and videos of the exchange which occurred over the span of two days.

You’ll notice in this exchange that I turn the conversation into identifying what I believe is a very real problem with the governance of colleges and universities in British Columbia. That is, I note that British Columbia is unique in Canada wherein all of its college and university boards are dominated by Order in Council (i.e. government) appointments.

The independence of college and university boards is critical. These institutions are places that allow for innovation and creativity to flourish. They’re not places for government to facilitate a top down imposition of its ideology. Unfortunately, under existing legislation the government has the potential to interfere in ways that could undermine their autonomy. That is why I have twice introduced a private members bill aimed at rectifying this situation.

I will continue to pressure government to adopt the proposed governance changes identified in this private members bill.

Text of Exchange (October 3)

A. Weaver: Now, I do appreciate the official opposition questioning and the line of questioning. I would suggest that there seems to be a misunderstanding, a fundamental one, as to how colleges and institutions operate in the province of British Columbia, which I would have expected not to have occurred in light of the fact that they have been in government for 17 years.

Please let me go through a series of questions. We’re clearly not going to make it though today. But the first question is with respect to section 1. I do realize that there’s been some kind of flow-over in sections 1, 2 and 3 when issues with respect to Royal Roads and universities have been discussed. So I ask some lenience, here, of the Chair. I will focus initially on the colleges and institutes.

My first question to the minister is: could she please describe the existing makeup of boards of governors as outlined in the College and Institute Act?

Hon. M. Mark: For the college boards, they’re composed of eight or more persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — one person on the faculty of the institution and elected by the faculty members, two students elected by the students, one person who is part of the support staff and elected by the support staff, the president, and the chair of the education council of the college.

I’ll add that the board of the Justice Institute of B.C. is slightly different. It consists of eight or more persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and the president.

A. Weaver: Now, this is where it gets a little bit…. I was just wondering — just for the sake of clarity and comparison, not dealing with section 3 but here — if the minister could say what the makeup of the board of the University of British Columbia is?

Hon. M. Mark: I feel like I need to say this really quickly so that we can get out of here on time.

The board of governors of the University of British Columbia is composed of 21 members in order to reflect that it has two campuses: the chancellor; the president; a faculty member who works at UBC Okanagan, elected by faculty members who work at UBC Okanagan; two faculty members who work at UBC Vancouver, elected by faculty members who work at UBC Vancouver; 11 persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, two of whom are to be appointed from among persons nominated by the alumni association; a student who studies at UBC Okanagan, elected from students who are members of a student society and study at UBC Okanagan; two students who study at UBC Vancouver, elected by students who are members of a student society and study at UBC Vancouver; one person who works at UBC Okanagan, elected by and from employees who are not faculty and work at UBC Okanagan; and finally, one person who works at UBC Vancouver, elected by and from employees who are not faculty and work at UBC Vancouver.

A. Weaver: Would it be true, then, if I made the statement…? This is a question to the minister. In every case, in every college and institute — Royal Roads — and university in the province of British Columbia, the composition of each board has more order-in-council appointments than it does elected members of the university.

Hon. M. Mark: Yes.

A. Weaver: Could the minister please describe any other province in the country of Canada for which there are more order-in-council appointments at the university level over the elected or other members from the institution?

Hon. M. Mark: I don’t have the detailed information in front of me at this moment, but I can get the information to the member.

A. Weaver: We’ll be resuming this later, and I would hope we can start the questioning with this.

I do note the hour, and I move that we rise and report progress.

Text of Exchange (October 4)

A. Weaver: Yesterday we left off with a question that the minister had suggested she would be able to provide the answer for: the question I had asked as to what other provinces in our country have boards that are comprised of more order-in-council appointments than those elected by or participating in the institutions. I’m hoping she has the answer this morning to share with us.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member for the question. There are a few examples in other provinces where, like British Columbia, LGIC appointees have a majority over non-appointed members. But across the country, the number of government appointees to university boards generally do not exceed the number of non-appointed members.

For example, the University of Manitoba has 12 appointed members, three of which must be students, and 11 non-appointed members. At Memorial University of Newfoundland, they have a majority of 21 appointed members, four of whom are students, and nine are non-appointed members.

A. Weaver: I appreciate the very few examples that exist. It’s interesting to note in those examples that exist that the appointed members are, indeed, also comprising students. So British Columbia is rather unique in the number. And as the minister pointed out yesterday, in the colleges act, there is a boardroom made up of one elected faculty member, two elected students, one staff elected, one president, one chair of the education council and eight appointments through order-in-council — at least eight.

My question is to the minister. Does she believe that students are in a conflict of interest if they are on a board, in light of the fact that it is the board that determines tuition fee increases? Yes or no?

Hon. M. Mark: The response is no, but there are bylaws and measures in place to address any conflicts of interest. Again, through the board, there are some institutions where students are allowed to participate in the room. There are institutions where they’re not. The test of conflict of interest is always being measured. Again, the law, the act, states to act in the best interests of the institutions.

A. Weaver: Every college in the province and every university in the province has students on its boards. Those students are elected, and those students are governed by conflict-of-interest proceedings and regulations as outlined by the minister. So I very much appreciate that answer.

In the same vein, of the staff and faculty that are on all boards, everyone, as is noted by the minister, is elected. The question I then have is: how are order-in-council appointments made? Who actually makes those appointments?

Hon. M. Mark: Orders-in-council are approved by cabinet at the recommendation of the minister. As the member knows, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of appointments that are made across all ministries throughout government.

A. Weaver: On these boards, some of the institutions…. We’ve had some leeway in these discussions because sections 1 to 3 are virtually identical in scope. They just apply to three different things: College and Institute Act, Royal Roads Act and University Act. The official opposition and I have been a little loose across the references, but it’s all bearing on the same theme.

My question is: how is a chancellor appointed at a university, and how does a board appoint the chancellor?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. Under the University Act, “chancellor,” defined under section 11, part 5: “There must be a chancellor of each university, who is to be appointed by the board on nomination by the alumni association and after consultation with the senate or, in the case of the University of British Columbia, after consultation with the council.

A. Weaver: The chancellor is the public face and the representative of an institution. The chancellor, as noted by the minister, is elected by the board. The government appoints the majority in British Columbia on all boards of colleges, Royal Roads and universities.

Does the minister believe that there’s a potential conflict of governance if it is the government that ultimately, through its appointments and dominance in all of the boards actually determines the voice of an institution? This is unique in British Columbia, unlike any other province in our nation — that the government appointees make up dominance of the boards, who then select the chancellor, who is the public institution. This is why we’ve had scandal after scandal in British Columbia, most recently at the University of British Columbia and also UNBC, with respect to appointments.

My question to the minister is this. Is she concerned that the conflict of interest that actually arises in the appointment of the boards in British Columbia is not through the elected people who are on the board but rather by the potential for government to influence the academic governance of a board by stacking the boards with their party elite? Does this concern the minister at all? And the subsequent question: is this an issue that she believes could lead to conflict of interest with government?

Hon. M. Mark: I do agree with the member that elected members are not in a conflict. However, the broader discussion of an appointment of a chancellor is, with all due respect, out of the scope of the discussion today with the amendments that we have on the floor. I am happy to discuss the bigger picture of the amendments that I am aware — which the member opposite has raised — need to be changed.

I’ve heard from other stakeholders what areas might need to be changed under the University Act or under the College and Institute Act, but with respect to what is on the floor today, we are proposing amendments to section 59, part 8 about the eligibility of appointed members to the board that are elected faculty or staff.

A. Weaver: I’m fine with that answer, actually. I’ll come back to that.

I have two more questions.

My question to the minister is this: to what extent do these proposals conflict or agree with similar legislation that exists in every other province across this nation?

Hon. M. Mark: The only other province that has similar legislation is currently Alberta. Through these amendments, the only province that will have those rules in effect will be Alberta. So we will be bringing ourselves in line with every other province in Canada.

A. Weaver: That concludes my line of questioning, and I very much appreciate the response from the minister and her staff.

To summarize what has happened here is that we’ve realized and had a full discussion as to the makeup of these boards, how there are certain elected members, which is comparative to other provinces. In fact, where we differ is we have so many order-in-council appointments here, whereas they have the majority on each and every board.

I appreciate that the minister pointed out that this is not the subject of today. But what I’ve tried to point out through this line of questions is that the amendments that are put forward here are not actually controversial. They’re in place already across the nation in virtually every other province except Alberta.

But Alberta is also quite different from B.C. because in Alberta, they do not have order-in-council appointments dominating the boards. So B.C. really is an outlier in this. We have, if I would suggest— I’d like to discuss this further with the minister, and I look forward to those discussions —— that if there is any conflict of interest in the boards, it’s not with the elected students. It’s not with the elected faculty. It’s not with the elected staff. It’s actually with the order-in-council appointments wherein government can actually have its agenda imposed on an institution by appointing the board, both in terms of the selection of the chancellor, who is the public face, as well as the governance within the programs in the institution.

That is very dangerous in a democratic society where we rely on the free exchange of ideas. British Columbia is unique.

I support this section wholeheartedly, as somebody who spent a lifetime in universities, as somebody who served as a chief negotiator for the faculty association, as somebody who couldn’t do that and be on the board — because there’s no time — as someone who supports the electoral process that puts students, faculty and staff on the boards, as someone who supports the governance of institutions in a free and democratic society but actually has very real problems with what is happening, again, in British Columbia, the Wild West, where order-in-council appointments dominate boards, potentially leading to — and in some cases, demonstrably leading to — decisions being made that are government-related that actually impinge upon the academic freedom of an institution.

With that, I thank the minister and her staff for the attention of the questions that I put forward.

Videos of Exchange