Yesterday in the legislature I had the pleasure of introducing five remarkable youth: Megan Walker, Grayson Threlfall, Astrid Nielson-Miller, Alex Bradley and Avery Williams. They, together with 20 other British Columbia youth, are working with Dr. Lindsay Harriet at the University of Victoria on writing a book about what it’s like to grow up as a transgender person in 2018. Their project is called The Transgender Tipping Point.

But their good work goes far beyond the book that they are writing. A few weeks ago I met with youth working on this project. One of them raised the important notion that two key bills, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act did not protect gender identity and expression or contained gendered language that did not instill confidence in the transgender community concerning the interpretation of the act.

I agreed and so worked with them, together with a legislative intern Kayla Phillips, to draft amendments to these bills. Today I introduced both the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2018 and the Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2018.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the introductions as well as our accompanying press release. I look forward to work with my colleague Spencer Chandra Hebert in the BC NDP to see if we cant get these bills passed in a timely fashion.

Video of Bill Introductions

Text of Bill Introductions

BILL M208 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

The right to privacy is well established in British Columbia, as is the right to be free from discrimination because of gender identity and expression. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, however, gender identity and expression is not recognized as a category of personal information that must be protected when its disclosure may harm a third party.

In addition to proposed changes to ensure the protection of gender identity and expression in freedom-of-information releases, the bill also proposes a move to gender-inclusive language. This would demonstrate a commitment to protect the personal information of gender identity and expression in the legislation to an even larger extent and provide the act with an update making it more representative of the people it is meant to protect.

I wish to recognize the young members in the gallery today, who have been quite instrumental in bringing this to my attention, as well as the good work done by the member for Vancouver–West End, whose championing of this in the Legislature over many years has also informed me and others as to the importance of acts like these.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M209 — PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

The protection of people’s private and personal information is essential, especially when the information could have negative impacts or when its release was not consented to. Too often, personal information regarding gender identity or expression is revealed.

This amendment would replace 16 instances of gendered language throughout the act with gender-neutral language. By explicitly making a point of doing this, it reinforces to those who may rely on the act that gender identity and expression is important personal information that should not be revealed without that party’s consent. This bill will build trust between those who wish to keep their gender identity and expression private and those they seek guidance from concerning personal and confidential issues.

I would like to thank for this, as well, the youth in the gallery above, for bringing this to my attention, and once more to the member for Vancouver–West End, who was an advocate for language and issues like this over the years and has also made this an important topic of discussion in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M209, Personal Information Protection Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Media Release

March 15, 2018
Weaver introduced private members bills to protect and acknowledge diverse gender identities
For immediate release

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, introduced two private members bills to that would further the rights of British Columbians with diverse gender identity and expression. The bills are amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act (FIPPA) and the Personal Information Protection Amendment Act (PIPA).

“Personal information such as sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and religious affiliation is already protected under FIPPA, in 2018 we should absolutely include gender identity and expression,” said Weaver.

“People with diverse gender identity and expression still face discrimination and far too often violence. It is essential that this information be protected to ensure it is not be released without their consent.”

Weaver was made aware of the need for these changes after meeting with local trans youth from The Trans Tipping Point Project, a UVic initiative organized by Dr. Lindsay Herriot and Kate Fry, with young trans people from across Canada.

“It was an amazing feeling to speak truth to power, and to be heard and listened to, and then have something done about it. I am incredibly thankful for the opportunity, and to everyone who supported us in making this happen,” said Avery Williams, one of the Trans Tipping Point Project youth.

The amendment to FIPPA would ensure that information regarding an individual’s gender identity and expression cannot be revealed by the head of a public body, and that it must be redacted in Freedom of Information Requests. The amendment to PIPA would replace instances of gendered language (he and she) with gender neutral language, reinforcing the principle that gender identity is important and is personal information that should not be revealed without consent.

-30-

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

On February 9, the BC government announced that in 2019, Family Day would move from the second to the third Monday in February. In fact, I had earlier introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 2017 to do just this and so the BC Green caucus was thrilled that the BC NDP supported this BC Green initiative.

But such an announcement needs to be coupled with either a legislative or regulatory change. In light of the fact that it is now over a month since the announcement was made and that the act had yet to be changed either way, I felt it was important to reintroduce the bill to remind government of its commitment. As such yesterday I introduced, for the second time, the Family Day Amendment Act.

Below are the video and text of the bill’s introduction.

Video of Bill Introduction

Text of Bill Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Family Day Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

This is the second time that I’m introducing this bill, which, if enacted, would amend the Family Day Act to prescribe that the third Monday in February each year is observed as Family Day. This amendment would align the date of B.C.’s Family Day with family days and other public holidays across the rest of Canada and in the United States.

The purpose of Family Day is to highlight the importance of family and bring families together, not cater to corporate lobbyists in the ski industry. In B.C., we observe Family Day a week earlier than all other provinces. Families spread out beyond B.C. aren’t able to be together. Federal employees and many who work in business are forced to work Family Day, since it is a business day everywhere else.

On February 9, the Premier announced that beginning 2019, Family Day would shift as outlined in this bill. Unfortunately, that cannot occur without a change in legislation. To assist government, I’m bringing forward this bill in the hope that the ball is not dropped. I would have brought this forward earlier had I realized we had such a light legislative agenda this session.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M210, Family Day Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Today in the BC Legislature I reintroduced a bill that would lower the voter age in British Columbia to 16. This is the third time I’ve introduced this bill. I’ve provided a detailed rationale for it here, here and here, and expanded upon it further in a Vancouver Sun article that was published today.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my introduction of the bill, as well as the media statement that we released.

Video of Introduction

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a bill that, if enacted, would lower the voting age to 16 in British Columbia.

The voting age in British Columbia was not always 18. Federally, it wasn’t until 1970 that the Canada Elections Act was amended to drop the voting age from 21 to 18. In British Columbia we made the jump in two steps. First, in 1952 we dropped the voting age from 21 to 19, but it wasn’t until 1992 that we made the subsequent change to lower the age to 18.

Around the world, more and more jurisdictions are openly discussing the notion of dropping the voting age to 16, and, in fact, a growing number have actually done so. Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Scotland are but a few of the jurisdictions that have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds.

There’s ample evidence to suggest that the earlier in life a voter casts their first ballot, the more likely they are to develop voting as a habit throughout their lifetime.

Sadly, in the 2017 election, only 56 percent of youth aged 18-24 and only 46 percent of young adults aged 25-34 voted here in British Columbia. Compare that to the provincial average of 61 percent and to the 75 percent of seniors aged 65-74 who voted.

It’s also a common misconception that 16-years-old are not as informed and engaged in political issues as older voters. The research, however, says otherwise.

Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are old enough to drive, pay taxes, get married and sign up for the military. They should have a say in the direction our province is heading as they ultimately inherit what we leave behind.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M205, Election Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Media Release

Weaver re-introduces bill to extend voting rights to 16 and 17-year olds
For immediate release
March 13, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, introduced a Private Member’s bill to lower the voting age to 16 in B.C. This is the third time Weaver has introduced the bill.

“Young British Columbians have the greatest stake in the future of our province; they should have a say in the decisions our politicians make,” said Weaver.

“Yesterday, Elections B.C. announced that only 56.24% of 18-24 year olds and 46.35% of 25-35 year olds voted in our last provincial election. Voting rights have been extended to 16 year-olds in Scotland, Argentina, Austria and Brazil. Evidence from those jurisdictions shows that enfranchising these young voters has led to substantially higher levels of political participation.

“Moreover, research shows that the cognitive skills required to make calm, logically informed decisions are firmly in place by age 16. Young citizens of British Columbia are old enough to drive, pay taxes and sign up for the military. They are also the leaders of tomorrow. They should have a say in the direction we are heading, as they will inherit what we leave behind. B.C. should take this chance to strengthen our democracy and lower the voting age to 16.”

-30-

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

Yesterday during committee stage of Bill 2: Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018 I rose to ask the Minister of Finance why her ministry did not exempt zero emission vehicles from the PST surtax that they are now applying to higher end cars. As I note in the text and video exchange reproduced below, early adopters of new technology typically heavily subsidize the research and development (R and D) costs of such technology. These early adopters play a critical role in ensuring that new innovations ultimately become affordable for mainstream society.

In my opinion, zero emission vehicles should have been exempted from this surtax.

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: The question I have for this section, I’ll ask it once and not repeat it for the other sections. It’s with respect to different types of classes of vehicles. I recognize that the minister had outlined the existing legislation and the taxes that apply below $125,000.

My question to the minister is this. To preface it, it’s that we know, in certain sectors, that early adopters are the ones that pay the R and D for new technology to emerge. If we go and look at flat screen televisions, the people who bought the first flat screens paid thousands and thousands of dollars. Now they’re literally giving them away when you sign deals — left, right and centre.

My question is: did the minister or her staff not think about exempting hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles from this tax? That is, with recognition that it is those early adopters that are paying the R and D in this new and emerging technology that allows others to actually buy these technologies, which is a direction we want to go.

So my question is: why did the ministers not exempt zero-emission vehicles from this additional PST? Ultimately, we want to tax that which we don’t want, and we want to not tax that which we do want. These are zero-emitting vehicles.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. In fact, we did take a look at battery-electric vehicles available in British Columbia. We did look at prices. The member is quite right. It’s obviously an area we want to incent support for.

If you take a look…. I’ll just give you some prices of the base models. I recognize that there are models that could be much more extreme than this. But if you look at the base models, for example, of Teslas — a Model 3 or Model S or Model X — those are all under $125,000. We feel that that fits within the existing bill.

A Nissan LEAF, for example, is $35,000; a Fortwo electric drive, $29,000. If you take a look at the prices — a BMW i3 is $50,000 — they’re all well within the range and under the $125,000. We felt that that was a reasonable approach and didn’t penalize, as the member has suggested, the kind of behaviour that we want to incent.

A. Weaver: Just to follow up, though. In fact, as the technologies emerge…. You couldn’t buy a hydrogen fuel cell. We don’t know whether that’s going to be the technology of tomorrow. But suppose a company decides to put that on the market. It’s zero-emitting. We don’t know that that…. We would want to let the early adopters actually pay the price, if they want to have that niche article, and not tax them.

In addition, we’re now talking about driverless vehicles. The high-end Teslas…. The Model X actually has a driverless component to it, and to get $125,000…. It goes rather quickly, and also the other exemptions for above 50 and above 67 too.

Again, I recognize the minister says that they took a look at the cars. But the reality is that the reason why we can buy a Nissan LEAF now for $35,000 is precisely because people were willing to pay $100,000 plus for those Teslas, and you got the investment in the battery technology that led to the mass production of the smaller cars.

Again, I would hope that the minister would recognize that this has been viewed very negatively within the electric vehicle sector of our society because of the fact that it’s not differentiating between those cars that pollute and those cars that don’t. It’s being viewed simply as a punitive measure on those early adopters who are trying to actually get the market going in the direction they wish it to go.

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member. I appreciate that. But again, when we’re taking a look at an increase in the purchase price of vehicles over $125,000 and over $150,000, I think that’s a reasonable approach. It doesn’t mean that those won’t be adjusted over time as additional vehicles come on the market.

I certainly know that most companies are looking at, when they get their vehicles on the market, as much affordability as they can. There are certainly other incentives that are often offered, whether it’s a rebate for an electric vehicle or otherwise. There are other kinds of rebates that occur as well.

We felt that this was a fair process. As I said, when I take a look at the models that are on the market, I think even Tesla…. When you’re looking at $122,600, that’s still a fairly pricey vehicle. We think $150,000 and $125,000 are a reasonable approach.

But I take the member’s point and understand that, always, there are opportunities to go back and take a look, as I said earlier, at a number of taxes we’ve talked about. There are always opportunities at the end of each year to take a look at their impact, to take a look at whether they’ve been effective or not and adjust as may or may not be needed.

Video of Exchange

Today in the BC Legislature we debated at second reading Bill 7: Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act, 2018. Such miscellaneous statute amendment bills are considered house keeping bills that contain numerous minor changes to several existing pieces of legislation. Typically these changes emerge as clarifications prompted from questions that have arisen in interpreting existing legislation.

Such bills are common. But what concerns me is that we are now half way through this legislative session and the government has yet to introduce any substantive new legislation. I was hoping for much more. The BC Greens would be thrilled to implement our ideas if the government is at a loss as to what should be done.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my brief speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise with great pleasure to speak to Bill 7, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. These are typically acts that we don’t debate very often, hon. Speaker, as you will know, as they’re housekeeping acts — acts that typically have highlighted a number of problems that have arisen, and legal challenges, etc., through the years.

In this particular case, we’re fixing a few things in the Interpretation Act — important things, defining where a time starts and ends for various measures — and little additions to the Crown Proceeding Act, as well as the Cooperative Association Act, the Building Act, the Fire Services Act and, of course, the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services Act.

Now, obviously, I speak in support of these changes. These changes are the culmination of a lot of hard work done by civil service legislative drafters, trying to ensure that our bills and laws are as up to date, as succinct and clear and easy to interpret as possible.

But on the broader question…. The broader question is really this. We are now halfway through this session. We are going to end at the end of this week. As it stands, the members of the opposition have brought in more bills to debate than has government.

In fact, the government has only brought in four bills. What is government doing?

We’re here to debate the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. When I sat on the other side, I used to listen to member after member in the opposition then and now government hurl abuse at the B.C. Liberals — abuse about the fact that all we were debating was miscellaneous statutes amendments acts. Sometimes, there were three such acts. Here we now have a government that’s been in power for nearly eight months, and what are we debating? We’re debating Bill 7, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Where’s the Family Day amendment act? We know that the Premier has stood up and said that Family Day is going to change. It’s one line that needs to change in that act. Why aren’t we debating that? We had the members opposite, when they were in opposition, bringing in bill after bill after bill for years. Where are all of those bills?

Obviously, I stand in support of this, as both sides stood in support of the Supply Act to ensure that the government was paid, but really, this is not good enough. Government has been in power for eight months, and this is the level of our debate here. Frankly, I’m tired of it, and British Columbians are tired of it. I think that we need to shape up here in British Columbia and ensure that we’re actually debating legislation about the issues that British Columbians care about.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for your time, and I look forward to finally debating some other bills that we hope, at some point, will actually be brought forward to this Legislature.