Today on the legislature we debated Bill 50: Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill re-establishes the British Columbia Human Rights Commission after it was disbanded by the BC Liberals in 2002. BC is in the only province in the country without a human rights commission.

Before 2002 BC had a Human Rights Commissioner which worked as the gatekeeper to the tribunal and did investigations directly. Instead of going back to that model, this Bill creates a ‘direct access’ model, which works well in other jurisdictions like Ontario. The Tribunal will continue to be responsible for all aspects of human rights applications (processing, mediation and adjudication), while the commission will look at broader patterns of systemic human rights issues, policy development and public education

This bill closely follows the 25 recommendations in the report compiled by Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Multiculturalism Ravi Kahlon on establishing a new BC human rights commission. The report outlines recommendations in five categories, including the commission’s creation, purpose, functions, powers and early priorities.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in this second reading debate on Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act. As I’ve mentioned, this bill re-establishes the British Columbia Human Rights Commission after it was disbanded by the B.C. Liberals in 2002. It does this by amending the human rights code to establish an independent Human Rights Commission office.

As I mentioned, this is another example of pendulum swings that have plagued our first-past-the-post system here in the province of British Columbia. When governments come in, we see broad policy sweeps — very costly at times — as, for example, the labour code and others where policies comes in and are taken back as governments switch with the different ideologies.

I’m looking forward to these kind of changes — more draconian pendulum swings no longer really taking place here in British Columbia — with a successful referendum on proportional representation. One of the things we know is that policies like this…. You don’t establish something, then tear it down and then re-establish it and tear it down.

That tends to get mitigated, and we wouldn’t have to be debating this today were we to have a government that was required to listen to broader elements of our society than, perhaps, was required in 2002, when there were but two NDP MLAs sitting in opposition and every other MLA was a member of the B.C. Liberal Party, despite just getting slightly over 50 percent of the vote.

The new office is going to be similar to other independent offices, like, for example, the Representative for Children and Youth. Obviously, I’m delighted that this is being introduced into this House. Both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens campaigned on bringing back a human rights commission to actually look at human rights issues proactively instead of just reactively, as is done now.

This bill is finally bringing B.C. in line with other jurisdictions in the country. We are the only province that has not had a human rights commission these past 16 years. It’s yet another noteworthy aspect of British Columbia that we are not so proud of, not having a human rights commission for the last 16 years.

The new bill and the new provisions in the bill that will be enacted will not take us back to the pre-2002 model but will instead set up a similar model to what exists presently in Ontario. In that respect, it’s less of a pendulum swing than we might have otherwise have expected.

The bill follows the 25 recommendations that were outlined in the report brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Multiculturalism. This report was based on eight weeks of public consultation on this subject. Of course, as well the UN Paris principles had been used as a guide for drafting of this bill.

This bill is needed for a number of reasons. It’s needed to fight systemic injustices across our province, to protect against patterns of discrimination proactively and to be able to champion education campaigns on human rights and inequality across the province, particularly in areas where there are systemic issues.

It’s important to allow the commissioner the power to create guidelines in education programs for other institutions in our province to use as well. This bill is, therefore, putting back the Human Rights Tribunal into the rightful place as the arbitrator of specific complaints regarding human right contraventions.

There’s many things in British Columbia affecting British Columbians that that need an office like this with a mandate like this to look into. The number one issue referred to the current Human Rights Tribunal is disability non-accommodation. I would anticipate that this this is an area that the new commissioner will work on proactively, as well, to explore systemic issues of disability and non-accommodation.

To give a bit of history in this, we’ve gone back and forth in B.C., as I mentioned, on having a human rights commissioner and commission. We had one, for example, that the Socred government eliminated in 1983. Then we didn’t have one, and then the B.C. NDP government of the 1990s brought it back in. And the B.C. Liberals, in 2002, brought it out, and now it’s coming back in again — a beautiful example of the pendulum swing that has mired B.C. politics for such a long time, where we’ve had dynasties of single-party domination, which, after many years, forget to actually remind itself that it is there to represent the people and not its vested interests or its donors.

Hopefully, this is the last time the pendulum will swing and that it will settle in the middle, along the lines of what every other province in our country has — a human rights commission that not only reacts to human rights issues that are brought to it but is proactive in terms of dealing with systemic issues of human rights contravention in our province.

We like to think that there are none, but we all know cases where there are. In 2002 — giving some more history here — the human rights commission was eliminated for political reasons, I would argue. It was forced to cut its budget, cut its staff, and to add insult to injury, the commissioner and the acting chief commissioner were fired in the morning before legislation to get rid of the commission was introduced.

Fired in the morning before the legislation was introduced to eliminate the commission. Somewhat spiteful, if you ask me, and not a type of signal, really, that we should be sending the province of British Columbia. It was widely condemned, this decision, by the human rights groups across the province.

One of the only MLAs that raised the voices of the human rights groups that were affronted by the B.C. Liberals removing this commission was Jenny Kwan, one of but two NDP MLAs serving in the B.C. Legislature in 2002.

She said that by abolishing the commission, B.C. will fail to meet the criteria of the Paris principles, which require that human rights agencies have “independence guaranteed by statute or constitution, autonomy from government, diverse membership, a broad mandate based on universal human rights standards, adequate powers of investigation and sufficient resources.”

Government shutdown the previous human rights commission to save $3.1 million, but at what cost? At what cost to broader society did this saving of $3.1 million lead? Perhaps the government knew that further cuts were coming when it did it. It was consistent with the government of the day, in essence, disadvantaging those who were already disadvantaged. Not raising rates — disability rates, welfare rates, housing assistance rates — for a decade. It was consistent with a kind of mean-spirited approach to government that prevailed at that time.

B.C. has not had a body that could look at systemic patterns of discrimination and recommended changes for almost two decades. That, of course, is all changing now with this legislation. The systemic discrimination facing Indigenous communities, women, people of colour, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities. It’s real, severe and completely unacceptable. The uphill battle faced by British Columbians who are at the intersection of more than one of these communities is even steeper.

Government had a hand in creating these discriminatory systems, so we need to dismantle them and rebuild a more fair and just province. This is what Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, takes us on a journey and pathway towards creating.

I and my colleagues in the B.C. Green caucus are very supportive of this legislation and are delighted with the changes proposed — long overdue, long called for. I thank government for introducing them, and we’re proud to stand in support at second reading.

Video of Speech

In the legislature today the Minister of Finance introduced a motion to send a number of amendments to committee stage for Bill 45 – 2018: Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act. These amendments match the three amendments that I put on the order papers although they were drafted by independent legislative drafters. The reason why government needed to do this was to ensure that my amendments were not ruled out of order by the Clerk. Amendments can be ruled out of order if they incur a cost on government.

Below I reproduce (in text and video) my brief remarks in response to the Minister’s motion. I was inappropriately cut off by the Speaker. The motion was a debatable motion and I should have been given 30 minutes to address it. The speaker was reacting to Mike Farnworth, the BC NDP House Leader, who stood up and was gesticulating to me and the speaker that the the motion wasn’t debatable. He was wrong. But you can’t challenge a speaker’s ruling.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Just a few words briefly on this motion. I’m pleased, obviously, to rise and take my place in the debate on this. The motion to move the amendments to the speculation and vacancy tax act.

For procedural reasons, government had to table these amendments. You’ll see some amendments I put in on the order paper as well. But the amendments that government is tabling reflect the agreement that we were able to reach with government on this tax a few weeks ago. I’m pleased to be supporting moving them to committee today. These amendments do three things — the three things as promised. Again, on the order paper, you will see three amendments that I put in that are virtually identical. But for procedural reasons, government is introducing these amendments.

The first is that mayors from affected municipalities will be consulted annually by the Minister of Finance on how the tax is affecting their communities, with metrics that are being developed. Over the past number of months, I’ve consistently raised the need for local governments to have a more significant role in determining what happens in their communities. The annual review of the tax with mayors will give communities a clear channel to making the case, based on evidence, for how the tax should apply to their communities and whether they should be excluded.

The minister will also be required to report the results of the annual review to cabinet to make a decision on whether the tax should continue to be applied in each of the specified areas. While I would have preferred for local governments to have the ability to opt out automatically, this is a compromise position that I feel I can support and my colleagues can support as well.

The second amendment requires that revenue raised by the tax will be used for housing initiatives within the region it came from. This is also important — that local communities directly benefit from the tax raised so that it is not viewed as a tax grab by government that rolls the moneys into provincial coffers to be lost thereafter. There needs to be a clear impact on the communities because the justification for the speculation tax is, of course, that there’s an externality, a social cost, that we’re asking people in British Columbia and elsewhere to internalize through the application of the speculation and vacancy tax.

The third amendment equalizes rates for Canadians and British Columbians. It brings the rate for Canadians down from 1 percent to 0.5 percent. Now, this is a very big change. Back in the spring, when this tax first came out, it was 2 percent for other Canadians.

Here after many, many months of working with government to come to razor-focus this tax to exactly this intent and purposes, it’s very reassuring to see that the rate has come down to 0.5 percent.

I believe fundamentally that from a fairness perspective, we should not be penalizing Canadians by making them pay higher rates just because they happen to live in another province. We are one country. I feel that as one country, we need to treat our citizens equally across that country.

In addition to these amendments, government has made a number of small changes in the legislation that go a long way to limiting the unfair impacts of this tax on Canadian homeowners who aren’t speculators.

Since it was first introduced in the budget, I’ve been hearing scores of cases that I’ve been bringing to government over the past eight months from people who are not speculators and who should not be facing the tax, as well as other examples where the speculation tax shouldn’t apply.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

A. Weaver: My understanding, hon. Speaker, is on a motion, I am able to deliver a full 30 minutes.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is purely a procedural motion. This allows the amendments to be placed before the House for debate. Not at this time.

A. Weaver: Is this not a debatable motion, hon. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Not at this time. This is a motion to refer.

Motion approved.

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development what his ministry was doing to curtail glyphosate spraying in BC forests. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup™. It’s used to kill off broadleaf plant species that might inhibit the growth of seedlings that are replanted after a forest is logged. There are a number of significant negative impacts that arise from the current practice of widespread glyphosate spraying.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Every year in B.C., 16,000 hectares of forests are sprayed with an herbicide known as glyphosate. It’s sprayed over forests that have recently been logged and replanted to kill broadleaf plant species that might inhibit the growth of lodgepole pine seedlings. The result is reduced plant diversity, leading to monocropped forests that are vulnerable to more frequent and destructive wildfires and beetle infestations.

The World Health Organization has warned that glyphosate is likely carcinogenic. It also has genotoxic, cytotoxic and endocrine-disrupting properties. For decades, researchers have been reporting reduced numbers of rodents, moose, insects and birds in forests that have been sprayed.

To the Minister of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, if our forests exist for the monetary value once felled, glyphosate is an efficient tool. If we consider the value of our wildlife ecosystems and human health, it is a veritable threat. What are the values that inform our ongoing use of glyphosate in B.C. forests?

Supplementary Question

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you very much to the Leader of the Third Party for the question on glyphosate. It’s a topic that I’ve been following closely since 1990. It’s of great interest to people around B.C.

Glyphosate is broadleaf herbicide. Many members in the House might recognize it as the active ingredient in Roundup. I want to say that our government is committed to protecting the important biodiversity of forests while ensuring a continued vibrant forestry sector.

The herbicide glyphosate is approved by Health Canada for use in forest management and is used to improve survival and growth of trees. In B.C., any users must follow the Integrated Pest Management Act and take steps to minimize impacts on the environment, including fish-bearing streams, a very important consideration.

B.C.’s reforestation practices are continually updated based on new scientific research and information, and recently, the ministry started to allow increased levels of aspen and broadleaves in managed stands throughout B.C., which will lead to a further decline in the use of herbicides.

I know the member quoted a figure of 16,000 hectares where glyphosate was applied. That was a number from 2015. I’m happy to report, in 2017, that number went down to 10,000 hectares — so a decrease of almost 40 percent.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Numerous jurisdictions have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate. These include the Netherlands, Germany, France, Portugal, El Salvador, Argentina and Denmark, to name but a few.

 Meanwhile, in British Columbia, we continue to spray tens of thousands, or at least 10,000 hectares, of forests annually with glyphosate. We are contributing to the severity of wildfires, harming wildlife and watching the chemical work its way through our food supply, all without any sound justification.

We should be thinking about the precautionary principle here, not waiting until it’s too late. As Rachel Carson once wrote: “The right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged. It is the public that is being asked to assume the risks.”

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, we are risking a lot for questionable benefit. How can the minister continue to justify the ongoing use of glyphosates in our provincial forests?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to acknowledge that we’re looking for ways to do better in the forests, especially around the application of herbicides, and so other forestry innovations, such as the use of superior orchard seed, improved nursery techniques, fast-growing seedlings and well-timed planting is also reducing the amount of herbicide being required.

We continue to investigate other silviculture strategies that take into account climate change and managing for resilient forest ecosystems. I’m very excited about the work of re-establishing forests after they’ve been disturbed by wildfires and recreating a forest mosaic so that deciduous as well as conifer stands are part of that mosaic,  leading to more resilient forest eco-types.

We’ve also been doing work on the impacts of glyphosate on wildlife, specifically with moose. That’s a huge concern to many people in rural areas — moose populations. We want to make sure we’re responding to scientific evidence, and so we have a program where we’ve initiated a two-year study to look at the impacts of herbicide spraying on feed and moose forage and nutritional quality of moose forage.

We anticipate the preliminary results to be available in 2019, and we look forward to implementing that research, based on scientific evidence.

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.