Yesterday in the legislature we continued debate on a hoist motion put forward by the BC Liberals on Bill 6 – 2017: Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. The motion was designed to kill the bill aimed at enabling a referendum on proportional representation in the fall of 2018. I have already spoken in support of Bill 6 at second reading.

Anyone who has watched the debates on Bill 6 will have heard the BC Liberal MLAs lining up to argue against the merits of proportional representation. At times it seemed that they were reading the same speech. What’s remarkable is that all Bill 6 does is enable a referendum on proportional representation. There is an ongoing consultation process designed to gather feedback from British Columbians.

In the speech reproduced in video and text below, I note that the entire debate on both sides, has boiled down to one question. That one question is this: do we trust the people of British Columbia to actually determine the outcome of how their democracy would like to be?

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on the hoist amendment, hoist motion brought forward by the members opposite with respect to our discussions on Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

I’ve listened to the debate. Speaker after speaker after speaker raised issues. I wonder, after reflecting upon it, if they recognize that we’re actually debating a bill that’s designed exclusively to create the legal framework for conducting a provincewide referendum before November 30, 2018, representing a proportional voting system.

Now, what I’ve heard here, in reflecting upon the need for more time, is members opposite on the one hand arguing passionately against proportional representation for reasons and rationale that are based on them actually knowing the outcome of the consultative process that is ongoing now. On the other hand, I’ve heard people argue against proportional representation in general. Some of the arguments have gone so far as to be, I would argue, somewhat outlandish.

One member opposite stated, and I quote — I mean, this is so inappropriate: “By the time they realized what had happened, it was too late. You ended up with World War II. You ended up with the Holocaust. You ended up with a number of countries that had to rebuild — meaning all of Europe. Many of the people that come to Canada should know this, because most of your ancestors came from Europe.”

This is the member for Skeena who stood up and, in arguing against letting the people of British Columbia decide whether or not they would support proportional representation, evoked the fact that this could potentially lead to the rise of nazis and a holocaust. This is so profoundly offensive that I honestly believe that that member should stand and apologize to the Legislature for those comments.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member opposite said I was taking it out of context. I encourage anyone here to go and read the Hansard, because it was not taken out of context. It was there for all to see.

This entire debate, on both sides, has boiled down to one question. That one question is this: do we trust the people of British Columbia to actually determine the outcome of how their democracy would like to be?

This is not….

Deputy Speaker: Member, speaking to the amendment.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I do appreciate you saying that, but I’ve listened again to speaker after speaker give speeches without referring to the amendment a single time during their speech. I have referred to the amendment many times already in this speech, yet the previous speakers have not.

I will continue to speak to the amendment and the reason why we don’t need to have the extra time. But I do reflect upon the fact that I did not hear other members do that in speaking to the amendment.

Coming back to the amendment, coming back to the rationale, we’ve had this debate boiling down to one question, on this amendment, as well as the motion before that: do we trust the people of British Columbia? Members opposite don’t seem to believe that we can trust the people of British Columbia to actually determine whether or not they want proportional representation. They don’t believe that we can trust the people of British Columbia to determine the outcome.

Their arguments against proportional representation and the need to consult further are compelling to themselves and their groups and friends, perhaps. Then vote no, if there is a referendum. But we’re not debating proportional representation. We’re debating whether or not — this one question — we trust British Columbians to have a say. And do we need another six months to actually go through?

We know the reason why members opposite have turned this debate on whether or not British Columbians are entitled to a choice into a debate on proportional representation. It’s because fundamentally, to quote their future leader, Dianne Watts. On November 4, 2017, she said this. It’s because they said this: “Because you know what, if we do not defeat this referendum, there will be no majority. There will forever be a minority of B.C. Liberals.” She also said: “That is my number one priority, and I’m hell-bent in terms of making sure that we defeat that referendum.”

Now therein lies the problem. This hoist motion that’s before us is nothing about proportional representation. It’s about fear — fear that the B.C. Liberals will actually tear apart and actually British Columbians, who we’re here to serve, will have a better choice as to who they want to represent them.

You know, I have friends in the B.C. Conservative Party. I’ve got friends in the B.C. Liberal Party. I’ve got friends in the B.C. NDP There is an unhealthy tension over there right now, an unhealthy tension because there’s a struggle for voices by members within that party. The whole purpose of proportional representation is to not create artificial coalitions, but to allow society to be reflected in terms of the makeup of the people who represent them in government….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Again, the members opposite, who we sat patiently listening to, and it was trouble at some times, feel very uncomfortable when the truth is pointed out. The truth that this is only about whether we trust British Columbians or not.

They don’t. They don’t trust British Columbians. They need more time — throw a hoist motion forward, and in doing so, what you’re basically doing is killing the bill. We all know that a hoist motion is killing the bill. That’s the purpose of this. They want to kill the bill, because they don’t trust British Columbians to actually determine the outcome of what they think is best. They don’t trust British Columbians to vote yes or no on proportional representation because the B.C. Liberals know the answer.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Members opposite are hung up on process. They’re hung up on process. What is ironic….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: This is the uncomfortable nature of the discussion, because the truth hurts. Let’s talk about the process, in response to the heckles from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. This is what the process is. There is a three-month consultative process ongoing right now. I encourage members opposite to do what the B.C. Greens are doing and to do, frankly, what the NDP are doing, and make your own submissions.

I’ve listened for must be two months now. I don’t know how long we’ve been debating this bill. Member after member after member already say what proportional representation is. I heard one member saying: “Its ranked lists don’t work.” Well your leadership convention is about to go through in terms of a ranked debate. I guess it works for B.C. Liberals, but it doesn’t work for proportional representation.

I’ve heard others talk about party lists, so you’re not actually voting for people, and “that doesn’t work.” But again, we don’t actually know what the question is.

So all this fear being put forward by the B.C. Liberals, and through their hoist motion trying to kill this, is basically fear of losing power, because the B.C. Liberals care about power — not about doing what’s right for the people of British Columbia.

The irony in this as well — as we’ve heard talk, time after time, about these so-called backroom negotiations that led to this — is that the same negotiations were happening with the B.C. Liberals, who agreed to have a referendum in the fall of 2018. So I’m not sure what’s….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting that none of these members who actually attended those meetings seems to know exactly what went on in the meetings, but I was at those meetings. Let me tell you. There was no difference in the discussions that we had between both parties about the importance of having a referendum on proportional representation, in light of the fact that this is something that British Columbians had told us was very important to them — as the Prime Minister did as well, federally.

Let me come back to this again. Here’s the irony. I sit through question period day after day, listening to the members opposite hurl abuse at government and say: “You’re not fulfilling a promise.”

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s hard to hear….

Deputy Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: “You’re not fulfilling a promise,” they will say. “This promise is broken. That promise is broken.” But here we have a promise being fulfilled — a promise that the B.C. NDP campaigned on. They campaigned in the last election on actually having a referendum on proportional representation, and that’s what this bill is doing.

This bill is simply enabling a referendum to occur. There’s no question being posed yet. There’s no structure being posed. It’s simply informing a referendum.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: See, there we have the heckling, coming back to that again — the heckling opposite, saying: “You need to put the question for it.” Well, this points to the scale of their arguments. They’re internally inconsistent. They want to consult and we need to have a six-month hoist in order to consult as to what the question is, but now they’re heckling and saying we need to know what the question is now.

This is what happens when you have a party that’s hurting, and I get that you’re hurting. I get that they’re hurting — in power for 16 years, now sitting in the benches there. There’s internal strife, as a few inner elite from the party from the past still dictate the way it will be and others don’t know what’s happening until they’re surprised in the chamber, and it frustrates them.

They see the liberty on this side of the House, where we have a working agreement, a working situation, showing British Columbians that two parties….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting again. Nobody wrote my speech. I’m actually just going from the cuff there, to the member of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Here, too…. It’s hard to get a word in with the heckling, but I will say what’s interesting here, with the comment about the speeches. The speeches I’ve heard to this hoist motion, time after time…. I wonder if you have one speechwriter downstairs, because I hear the same examples appearing by 41 Liberal MLAs, time in and time out. The same examples. The same rhetoric.

I was actually quite pleased with the member from Peace River North. I commented. He’s gone, but I think he wrote his speech.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: That’s true. The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan — I have to give this to you. It cannot be said you’re not green opposite, because you’re into recycling and reusing the speeches.

Coming back to the reason why the hoist motion is not necessary…. What we’re showing right now to British Columbians is that, yes, parties can work together. They can working together despite being fundamentally different in terms of values, despite the conflict that we have between these parties in the election campaign.  We can show British Columbians that we can put people ahead of our partisan narrative.

But we see again this morning, as illustrated again, the games — which is why this is troubling to the B.C. Liberals — that get played. We need to hoist this motion. We need to hoist this bill to the future because it might affect our power. Everything is a game, and that’s what is so sad. That is what is so sad with what is going on here in the Legislature, both earlier today as well as now, when we listen to good people, good members opposite, the hon. members opposite — at times just reading scripts given to them by the 20-something-year-olds downstairs telling them to just make stuff up.

Again, I don’t want to criticize the member for Vancouver–False Creek, because his speech was very good. It was actually clear that you wrote it yourself — not something that I’ve heard very often.

It’s important, though, to recognize that this ultimately comes down to one question again. This is what the debate is. The debate is one question. Do we trust British Columbians to determine their outcome? Yes or no?

The B.C. Liberals clearly will vote later and say, “No, we don’t trust British Columbians to determine their outcome,” whereas members on this side will say: “Yes, we trust British Columbians. We trust you to have a say in your future. We will give you that say in the future, despite the fact that in the quest for a Liberal majority, at all costs, they will suppress the rights of British Columbians to have a say in their democracy.

Today in the Legislature the government brought forward a motion to authorize the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on ridesharing in British Columbia. As I noted late last week, the committee comprises MLAs from all three parties, will engage with expert witnesses, debate the issue and produce a report to be released by February 15, 2018. 

For several weeks, the B.C. Greens have been working with the B.C. NDP to develop an approach that would allow important questions related to ride-hailing to be canvassed with stakeholders in British Columbia with the goal of introducing enabling legislation. The motion that was to be debated was shared with the BC Liberals last week and we were led to believe that they supported it. The BC NDP, BC Liberal and BC Green house leaders let each other know that there would only be four speakers (two Liberals, one Green and one NDP).

I rose first to speaker in favour of the motion (see video and text reproduced below). The next speaker was Mike de Jong, the official opposition house leader. Midway through his speech he blindsided everyone by introducing an amendment to the motion with no notice. The debate then moved to debating the amendment. Once more I stood to speak to the amendment (the text and video are reproduced below).

As you will see from the two speeches, I was initially thrilled that all parties had agreed to work collaboratively to advance ridehailing. I had not expected to be blindsided by the petty games played by the BC Liberals as I had assumed, after conversing with a number of BC Liberal MLAs, that they were eager to move the issue forward. In the second speech I point out how unfortunate it was the the BC Liberals took the approach that they did, especially in light of the fact that we sent a letter to the opposition house leader last week concerning our desire to collaborate with the BC liberals on improving legislation.

From what transpired today it is clear to me that for the BC Liberals, politics is nothing but a game. They have no intention of working collaboratively to advance good public policy as all they seem to be interested in is the quest for power. After their antics today, I was also left wondering if the MLAs in the BC Liberal caucus actually knew what they were voting on. I suspect that they were as surprised as the rest of the house was when they were instructed to vote against bringing ridehailing to British Columbia. Fortunately, the BC Liberal amendment failed and the motion to authorize the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on ridesharing in British Columbia passed.

Vote on the amendment

Vote on the motion

Below I also reproduce the media release that we issued following the passing of the motion today.

Speaking to Motion: Video

Speaking to Amendment: Video

Speaking to Motion: Text

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise here and speak in favour of Motion 16 on the order paper today. I’m very, very happy to be standing here to this advancement. This is a momentous, to my knowledge, occasion. This is a first time that I recall that an issue raised in a private member’s bill has been brought forward to a committee, a select standing committee, in recent times here in the Legislature.

When I tabled my ride-share enabling bill for the first, second and third time, I said I was doing so to help move the discussion forward, and I’m very glad we have been able to do so in such a productive manner.

We in British Columbia want to view ourselves as innovators in the taxi sector, but you’ll never be viewed as an innovator if you’re not willing to embrace the innovation that is before us in that industry. At long last this issue will finally be addressed in a collaborative fashion by all three parties, and it’s been six years — six full years, pushing seven now — since ride-hailing companies first attempted to enter the B.C. market.

Despite all-party agreement that we need to bring this disruptive technology to British Columbia in a regulated fashion, we’ve yet to see any progress until now. Instead of my bill being called for second reading, ride-hailing will now go to an all-party committee, the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, made up of MLAs from all three parties.

For several weeks, the B.C. Greens have been working with the B.C. NDP to develop an approach that would allow important questions related to ride-hailing to be canvassed with stakeholders in British Columbia. The committee, comprising MLAs from all three parties, will engage with expert witnesses, debate issues related to the industry and, ultimately, produce a report to be released by February 15, 2018.

The committee framework is the opportunity for government representatives to talk to ride-hailing companies, consult with stakeholders about their concerns and analyze how this sector will impact the variety of communities across British Columbia.

Sometimes people think that ride hailing is only a metro issue. But let me tell you, when I’ve travelled British Columbia and I’ve talked to taxi drivers from north to south and east to west, I recognize that it’s a desire to come provincewide.

On the Select Standing Committee on Finance, we were in Cranbrook recently, as part of our travels. The taxi driver who picked me up there told us about ride-sharing in her area. She said she wants it to come there because it costs her a $100 a day to rent the cab from a licensee holder. On some days, she actually loses money, whereas if she were able to be her own boss, travel when peak demand is there and not travel when there’s not peak demand, it would allow her greater flexibility. She was all for it in the Kootenays.

As we move forward, we must recognize that we already have ride-hailing companies operating in this province, not only in Metro Vancouver but here in the capital regional district. They’re already here. They’re already operating — in Chinese language, mind you — but they are operating in an unregulated environment. And that poses a risk to public safety that this government has a responsibility to ensure is dealt with.

This isn’t about just major ride-sharing companies. We’ve all heard Uber. In fact, we all hear the discussion that it’s all about Uber. Uber is but one name that seems to be in the press a lot, but there are many others. We recently heard about the company Lyft moving to North America. But what’s more is that as I toured British Columbia speaking to tech leaders in all jurisdictions — from Kelowna to Kamloops, to Vancouver, to Victoria, to Prince George, to Fort Saint John — I recognize that there are also B.C.-based entrepreneurs, B.C.-based innovators, B.C.-based start-ups that are keen to move into this disruptive space too. But they can’t because they want to play by the rules, and the rules have not been set. So they can’t enter the market.

It’s our expectation that this report will be used alongside the work of Mr. Hara to inform all future legislation that the government brings forward to regulate both the taxi industry and the ride-sharing industry.

Now, I appreciate the government has taken steps towards bringing ride-hailing to British Columbia by hiring an expert to begin to look at modernizing our out-of-date regulations for the taxi industry. However, my colleagues and I were concerned when we saw that explicit reference to ride-hailing was missing from the terms of reference of that review.

We felt that this would be an opportunity to use our Legislature in a new way and promote a multipartisan, collaborative response to this issue for which there is pent-up demand like I’ve never seen before in British Columbia.

While this committee will be tasked, the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, with taking on the specific issue at present by ride-hailing services, I hope that what we are doing here today provides a blueprint in this province for how we might deal with future issues as well. The world is changing, and our economy is changing. We have the responsibility as legislators to ensure that we are not simply keeping pace with the change — or, in this case, struggling to even keep up with it, years behind — but that instead, we’re preparing for the challenges proactively and creating opportunities for this generation and next.

Let me tell you, here in B.C. while we still debate the introduction of ride-hailing and the introduction of transport network providers, other jurisdictions are already talking about driverless cars. They’re already talking about creating a regulatory environment that allows transportation without a driver. We are so far behind in British Columbia, yet we have so much opportunity to be leaders in this area, as well as others in the emerging economy.

For two years, my staff and I have been meeting with representatives from the taxi and ride-sharing industries to discuss the opportunities, the barriers and the challenges facing B.C.’s transportation systems. Let me say that while there are some licensed holders of taxis who are concerned that their investment may be affected, without doubt, the overwhelming number of taxi drivers and taxi companies that I’ve spoken to support the introduction of ride-hailing. They recognize that it has happened throughout North America, throughout the world, and their industry has not suffered.

We know that the introduction of ride-hailing targets a generation, the millennial generation, who otherwise would not be taking taxis. They’d be driving their cars or not going where they want to go. It’s the generation of people who, on evenings on Friday and Saturday nights, are stuck in downtown Vancouver trying to get home or sometimes taking that risk that perhaps they’ll drive home themselves because they can’t get access to a taxi, when they shouldn’t be in that car.

This is a safety issue for which a solution exists and for which a solution has existed for years. I’m delighted that we’ll start to explore this further in the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. Quite excited by the makeup of that committee too. It looks like it will be some…. I think I’m one of the older people on that committee. There’s a relatively young demographic represented on that committee — the member for Vancouver–West End, the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale…. It looks like we’ll have a generational perspective as we move forward in the discussions on that committee.

Over time, it has become increasingly clear that B.C. has fallen behind when it comes to evolving with innovation, unlike almost every other major city in North America. Other jurisdictions have had ride-sharing services in their communities for nearly a decade, and we just now are getting to work on it. And as I have mentioned, others are already talking about it with autonomous vehicles.

There is many an anecdote of executives and tech innovators coming to Vancouver on a jet from the Silicon Valley and getting off that plane and saying, “I’m going to access the ride-hailing company here, because I have an account,” and not being able to and then wondering what’s going on in this jurisdiction that is trying bill itself as an innovator in the modern economy.

Some cities are getting driverless cars, as I said, before we can even allow ride-sharing apps to be operated here in British Columbia. It’s just remarkable. So let’s get on with this committee work. I’m excited to do so. We do a disservice to the people who elect us if we continue to pretend that the only things that are worth talking about are the divisions between us. On this issue, the B.C. Liberals campaigned to bring in ride-sharing enabling legislation by the end of this year — as did the NDP and as did the B.C. Greens, actually, for three years. We finally have all three parties’ agreement, so let’s get on and do this.

A willingness to debate and to ultimately provide a shared report that outlines the path forward is a good thing. I’m sure that every member of this House can agree that when making big changes, it’s essential that we bring the public along with us. We respond to public opinion, we listen to the public, and we move forward based on public opinion to bring in policy that actually reflects the concerns and values of the general public but also provides a safe, equitable work environment for those embracing the new technology.

Considering the level of politicization of this issue so far, and the significance of introducing this new technology to British Columbia, I sincerely hope that this multiparty committee will provide great value in assuring the public’s confidence. We’re en route to developing legislation that will enable the fair, safe and accessible introduction of ride-sharing in British Columbia so it can be passed as soon as possible.

It’s my goal that the work of this committee will help make this the last holiday season in British Columbia without ride-sharing services.

Speaking to Amendment: Text

A. Weaver: I’d like to speak to this amendment, if you would bear with me just a couple of seconds. I’ve only seen it for the first time moments ago. I would start by saying we did send a letter to the member opposite, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, asking him for clarity and providing guidance on how we would hope that, in the spirit of cooperation, amendments would be brought forward and that they wouldn’t be tabled on the floor — if there was an idea to bring an amendment forward — without the opportunity for thoughtful reflection. Upon what was being brought forward in the amendment…. We don’t have that benefit right now because I literally have just been given it, and I’m literally struggling to find on the order papers the motion that we’re debating.

Here’s the motion here: “That the Committee be authorized to meet for up to 3 days to hear from expert witnesses.” So the concern here is to remove the words “3 days.” Now, I understand that the point here is that you don’t want to hamstring the committee. My worry about this — even though I do like the idea — is that we do have a parallel process with respect to the taxi industry. The purpose for having this particular review, this particular motion, this particular review of ride-hailing is that it was not included in the terms of reference of the review of the taxi industry.

I understand the importance of hearing from existing taxi licence holders as well. Clearly, they’re the ones who were most resistant to the introduction of the new technologies. The reason, of course, is that some of these have very, very substantive value.

I’ll tell a quick story here. As I was on C-FAX here in Victoria discussing ride-hailing, an owner of a taxi licence phoned in, and he told me that he’s very opposed to ride-hailing and he suggested I didn’t know what I was talking about. Then he went on to provide some information. He had acquired the taxi licence for $200. Well, as soon as one acquires a taxi licence for the tune of $200, you now are the owner.

We have a very odd system in British Columbia, whereby licence recipients own those licenses forever. A separate debate that we could have at some point is that I think it’s important that we move away from the owner having licences for life and recognize that the licences are the property of the Crown. They can be leased out instead of being offered forever, because the artificial value that’s created in the marketplace — for something that really shouldn’t be there — is done in the process.

So the $200 licence here in Victoria is now worth, I don’t know how many tens of thousands of dollars, because of the fact that these have a value. And you can buy and sell them. I get that the taxi licence holders are concerned — the taxi drivers less so; the licence holders are.

It’s important that we hear this perspective. The question I have is: to what extent that is this the appropriate avenue in which to actually have the taxi licence holders make their case when we know that the other parallel committee stage is exactly 100 percent dedicated to taxis? Ride-hailing companies are not able to participate in the engagement of that because it’s not included in the terms and references.

So I continue to struggle here. What I struggle most about is I like to reflect upon good ideas. The amount of time I’ve had to reflect upon this is literally seconds, and had the government opposite — members opposite — really wanted in good faith to get this forward, why didn’t they give it to us in advance? Why didn’t we see this last week? Why didn’t we see it yesterday? The opposition had the opportunity to do that. They had the opportunity to actually come and talk to us. It’s particularly in light of the fact that we sent the member for Abbotsford West a letter specifically requesting that he consider providing, if you want to actually get amendments forward, give us the information in advance so we can reflect upon it.

I struggle with this, because I don’t know what the unintended consequences — “for up to three days.” That was agreed upon. If we just remove it, how do we know now that this process is not self-limiting to go on forever? Let’s suppose suddenly every taxi licence holder decides that they want a right to come and speak before the committee. We could have thousands of speakers taking this process through to the eternity. That’s not the intent.

So again, I recognize and I support the idea that we don’t want to limit…. I hope I get a chance to hear some words from the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky who is on the committee with us because, again, I’m troubled with this, not because I don’t agree with the intent of providing flexibility to the committee and not because I don’t disagree that we want to ensure that we listen to everyone. But I’m not sure, again, let me see if I can go specifically to the wording.

I shouldn’t be doing this in the debate. In good faith, I shouldn’t be having to look at the same time as I’m speaking to this amendment trying to figure out and think whether I support it on the fly. Is that how we do legislation here in B.C.? Is this the way we really want to do legislation.

On the one hand, I’m holding the motion; on the other, I’m holding the amendment. I’m trying to figure out whether this is good or not. As I’m thinking this through, I’m filling the space with words because half my brain is trying to figure whether it’s a good idea and the other half is trying to fill this with words so you don’t call me on time.

This isn’t how we do policy in this province. The more I think about it, the more I’m thinking that the member opposite had a lot of time. He had the time to actually show this to us so we could have thought about it instead of on the floor. I can’t support this because of that, because I haven’t had the time to let my left brain catch up with my right brain as I’m trying to embed these two and think about the consequences with no advance notice.

Media Release

BC Liberals vote against moving ride-hailing forward
For immediate release
November 28, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – The B.C. Liberal caucus today voted against moving ride-hailing forward in British Columbia. Last week, B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver announced that he had reached an agreement with the B.C. NDP to move the subject of ride-hailing, raised earlier in October in a Private Member’s Bill introduced by Weaver, to an all-party committee of the Legislature. The Committee is slated to deliver a report on ride-hailing to inform eventual legislation no later than February 15, 2018.

“I must admit I am disappointed that the BC Liberals have chosen to oppose moving ridesharing forward,” said Andrew Weaver. “Since electing a minority government British Columbians have been clear that they want their politicians to work together like grownups. This could have been an opportunity for all parties to stand together and show people we are capable of that.”

Last week, the B.C. Greens sent a letter to B.C. Liberal House Leader Mike de Jong requesting advance notice of amendments in order to consider the policy implications. However, the Liberals yet again introduced an amendment to the motion at the last minute. The amendment further came as a surprise as the B.C. Liberals had indicated in public statements that they were supportive of moving forward on this issue.

“If our goal is to craft good public policy Members of the legislature need to grow up and stop using amendments as tools for political gamesmanship. As legislators, we must consider, for example, whether amendments create redundancy and waste taxpayer money, as the one proposed by the Liberals today appears to. It is regrettable that the Liberals continue to refuse to engage on the issues in favour of treating this House like a game.”

The B.C. Liberal amendment would have amended the terms of reference for the committee to include taxi licensees. But a review of the taxi-licensing system is already underway by the government, making that prospective work by the committee ineffectual given it would be considering a licensing program that is slated for reform next year.

“While BC is just starting to debate ride hailing other jurisdictions have already turned to autonomous vehicles,” said Adam Olsen. “I know the B.C. Liberals have a leadership race underway, but we cannot keep putting political calculation ahead of moving forward on the issues that matter to the people that elected us.”

-30-

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

Today in the legislature I rose to question the government about the unfortunate consequences of amendments to legislation that were passed in the spring of 2016. One company, Bardel Entertainment Inc, was affected to the tune of $5 million because of the retroactive application of these amendments to June 2015. This comes at a critical time when industry leaders are partnering with Okanagan College, UBC Okanagan, school district 23 , and the Vancouver Film School to develop a hands-on training program to position Kelowna as a leader in the new economy.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the Question Period exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In 2012, Bardel Entertainment, one of the world’s leading animation service providers, opened a small regional office in Kelowna.

In doing so, they took advantage of regional and distant location tax credits brought in by the B.C. Liberals in 2003 and 2008 respectively.

After growing to 50 employees and securing a number of major foreign contracts, Bardel opened its new state-of-the-art animation studio in downtown Kelowna on October 1, 2015.

On March 1, 2016, government introduced amendments to Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act. The amendments made substantive changes to the calculation of the regional and distant location tax credit. The changes were retroactive to June 26, 2015. Remarkably, during committee stage, the then Minister of Finance said this was: “Rather technical amendment that refers to the deletion of a couple of words that, frankly, were the result of a drafting error.” Well, the substantive changes had the effect of singling out Bardel and costing them $5 million.

My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology is this: will the minister take steps to remedy the B.C. Liberal mismanagement of the digital entertainment interactive media sector and ensure that Bardel is not penalized for being caught by a retroactive change in this legislation?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the Leader of the Third Party for his question and for his interest in the digital entertainment and interactive media sector. For too long, the former government, the old government, ignored this sector while they focused pretty well exclusively on LNG. This sector creates good jobs while attracting investment to our province, and our government wants to build this sector.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the response.

Hon. B. Ralston: Bardel Entertainment, which the Leader of the Third Party has referred to, has shared their concerns with me, and I will be meeting with them shortly — very, very soon. I look forward to discussing this issue and any concerns they want to raise, and I would be happy keep the member updated.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: For the first time, Okanagan College launched its two-year animation diploma program this fall. It’s but the first step in establishing the Okanagan as a hub for training and accreditation in the digital entertainment and interactive media industry. Industry leaders like Bardel Entertainment, Yeti Farm Creative, Hyper Hippo and Disney Interactive are partnering with Okanagan College, UBC Okanagan, school district 23 — that’s Central Okanagan — and the Vancouver Film School to develop a hands-on training program to position Kelowna as a leader in the new economy.

In particular, Bardel wants to commit up to $1 million to kick-start and pilot an open badge accreditation for digital media skills training program working with these partners, but the $5 million punitive, retroactive surprise they got from the B.C. Liberals has brought tough times to Bardel in Kelowna.

My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology is this: will he commit to working with the Ministers of Education and Advanced Education as well as local industry and educational partners to ensure that the Okanagan emerges as a go-to destination for training and accreditation in the digital entertainment and interactive media industry?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: This…. Kelowna as a centre for technology is a growing one. I’ve met recently with Raghwa Gopal, who’s the CEO of Accelerate Okanagan. In a round table, many of the companies that have been referenced were present and expressed their views about the great potential of the technology sector in Kelowna.

I really appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Third Party is raising this issue. I’m hard at work with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education to deal with those very issues of training. Certainly in Kelowna, Prince George, Vancouver Island and throughout the province, there is huge potential for this sector. We look forward to building this industry in our quest to build a prosperous British Columbia for everyone.

Today in the legislature I rose to table the private members’ Bill M211: Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act. If enacted, this bill would establish the fourth Saturday in November as an official day of remembrance: Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day. Similar legislation has already been passed by the federal parliament, as well as by Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the Bill’s introduction. I also append a copy of our media release.

Video of Bill Introduction

Text of Bill Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

This bill establishes the fourth Saturday in November as an official day of remembrance. The term “Holodomor” is derived from the words морити голодом, meaning extermination by hunger.

As many as 10 million Ukrainians were killed by the Soviet government under Joseph Stalin through a deliberate state-induced famine in 1932 to 1933. One-third of those killed were children. This bill, if passed, would make B.C. the fifth province to establish an official day of remembrance for Holodomor. Similar legislation has already been passed by the federal parliament, as well as by Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

Canada is home to the world’s third-largest Ukrainian population behind Ukraine and Russia, with an estimated 1.36 million Ukrainian-Canadians living across country. Among them are members of my family.

In my family’s case, as part of Stalin’s collectivization of farms, my grandfather, дідо, was shipped to northern Russia. My mother was born in the Ukraine and fled as a refugee during the Second World War. She now lives here in Victoria and has joined us in the gallery.

In tabling this legislation, I would like to recognize the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology for his continued efforts to have Holodomor recognized in this House. I also wish to thank the government for proclaiming, as a one-time event, November 25, 2017, as Holodomor Memorial Day, as well as the government’s commemoration of the victims of the famine and crimes against humanity in a ceremony this past weekend.

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 M211, Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act, 2017, 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 introduces bill to establish day of remembrance for Ukrainian genocide
For immediate release
November 27, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, today introduces a Private Member’s Bill to establish a permanent day of remembrance for Holodomor in British Columbia. The Bill, The Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (“Holodomor”) Memorial Day Act, 2017, would establish the fourth Saturday in November as an official day of remembrance. During Holodomor, 4-10 million Ukrainians were killed as a result of a man-made famine in 1932-33. One-third of those killed were children. An earlier version of the bill was twice introduced by NDP MLA Bruce Ralston.

“It is time this important day of remembrance was recognized by B.C.’s legislature,” said Weaver.

“Canada is home to the world’s third-largest Ukrainian population behind Ukraine and Russia, with an estimated 1.36 million Ukrainian-Canadians living across the country. Among them are members of my family. In my family’s case, as part of Stalin’s collectivization of farms, my grandfather (gig) was shipped to Northern Russia. My mother was born in the Ukraine now lives here in Victoria.

“I thank Mr. Ralston for his continued efforts to have Holodomor recognized in this House. I also wish to thank the government for proclaiming as a one-time event November 25, 2017 as Holodomor Memorial Day, as well as the government’s commemoration of the victims of the famine and crimes against humanity in a ceremony this past weekend,” Weaver continued.

“Let us now take the next step of establishing an official day of remembrance for Holodomor to reaffirm our province’s commitment to freedom, equality and human rights.”

Weaver’s Bill, if passed, would make B.C. the fifth province to establish an official day of remembrance for Holodomor. Similar legislation has already been passed by the federal parliament, as well as by Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

-30-

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

Yesterday my caucus colleagues and I sent a letter to BC Liberal House Leader Mike de Jong concerning our desire to collaborate with the BC liberals on improving legislation.

The reason why we felt it was important to do so is that we have been blindsided by several amendments that the BC Liberals have brought forward at the last minute. It is very difficult to support amendments tabled this way as they have not gone through legislative drafters, and advance notice on the order papers has not been given to allow for thoughtful reflection upon, and stakeholder engagement in, the substance of the amendments.

In addition, this past session the BC NDP granted both the BC Liberals and the BC Greens access to legislative drafters. This good faith approach to doing politics differently was very much appreciated by our caucus and we have taken advantage of this new opportunity.

The most recent example of a BC Liberal amendment, whose intent is something we could support, but as written could not be supported, concerns changes to Bill 15: Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act. It was clear from the debates that all parties agreed on the substance of what the amendment was trying to do. It was designed to allow candidates in self-funded local election campaigns to contribute an additional $1,200 (above the present $1,200 donation limit) to their own campaign. But as written, the amendment didn’t actually do what it was supposed to do.

Below I reproduce the video and text of an exchange I had with the Selina Robinson, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. During this exchange I ask the Minister to outline the problems with the proposed amendment. I was also able to get on record her commitment to introduce regulations that do precisely what the amendment was trying to accomplish, but didn’t actually accomplish. The regulation will be in place for the 2018 local government elections.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange as well as the text of our letter to the BC Liberal caucus. I also append the very brief media advisory that we issued.

Video of Exchange

Text of Letter

Mike de Jong
House Leader for the Official Opposition
BC Liberal Caucus
Parliament Buildings, Victoria

November 22, 2017

Dear Mr. de Jong,

We are writing to express our Caucus’ desire to collaborate with yours on improving legislation. As you know, advancing good public policy based on evidence is a core goal of our Caucus, as is working across party lines. Our parties have a history of collaboration on this front, working together under your past government to pass vital legislation that requires post-secondary institutions to have sexual violence policies and to improve labour regulations to prevent employers from requiring their employees to wear gender-specific footwear.

We request that when your caucus has amendments to legislation that your Members follow the following two processes so that we can pass the best public policy for our province. First, we request that your Members give adequate notice of amendments by putting them on the order papers in a timely fashion. Even small amendments can have significant and sometimes unanticipated implications. To responsibly consider amendments, our Caucus may need to consult with your caucus, experts, staff and each other. We need to consider the impacts on our constituents and on existing policy as well as whether the proposed amendment is constitutional. For this very same reason, bills are rarely debated the same day they are introduced.

Second, the government has recently made legislative drafters available to opposition members for the first time. As you know from your days in government, it is imperative that new laws be crafted in accordance with proper legal language and in consideration of existing statutes and amendments. We therefore request that your Caucus take advantage of the legislative drafters so that we can be assured that any proposed amendments are legally sound.

Yesterday, during our debate over Todd Stone’s amendment to Bill 15, we raised concerns that the amendment had not been placed on the order papers and had not been written by legislative drafters. Shirley Bond stated that it was improper to focus on process when debating policy. However, we believe that for the reasons discussed above, proper process is indeed a prerequisite for good public policy.

We understand that opposition Members have the right to introduce amendments without following the above processes. However, leaders of both our parties have acknowledged that this minority government is a message from British Columbians that they want us to work together. In order to do so, we must not accept the bare minimum standards that are technically required of us. Instead, it is incumbent upon us as elected representatives to make use of all opportunities available to us to ensure we advance good public policy that is in the best interests of British Columbians.

The agreement we signed with the BC NDP is grounded in a relationship of trust and built on a foundation of good faith and no surprises. Our approach has been to work with your caucus from this same foundation. We hope you will see this as a reasonable request so that we can have a productive working relationship, and so that we can deliver better outcomes for the people we represent.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weaver Sonia Furstenau Adam Olsen
Leader House Leader Caucus Chair and Whip
B.C. Green Caucus B.C. Green Caucus B.C. Green Caucus

Cc. Rich Coleman, Interim Leader, B.C. Liberal Caucus

Media Advisory

Advisory: B.C. Greens letter to B.C. Liberal caucus requesting better cooperation on amendments
For immediate release
November 22, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – The B.C. Green caucus has sent a letter to the B.C. Liberal caucus requesting better cooperation on amendments.

The full letter is attached and can be read here.

-30-

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

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions for the minister as we discuss this amendment further. My first question is that two days ago, when the minister was responding to — I forget — one of the members, he or she mentioned that she saw some constitutional issues or challenges with the amendment as put forward. I was wondering if she might articulate those to us.

Hon. S. Robinson: I wanted to let the member know that we were concerned about some potential issues. So I’ve had a chance to get some legal counsel on this. Some of the concerns include the effect of the amendment as drafted is different than what we understand the amendment to be. So based on legal review, the effect of this amendment is that once a candidate makes a contribution of any amount to their own campaign then the contribution limit for that candidate’s campaign is $2,400, regardless of who is making the contribution to that candidate. This rule does not limit the $2,400 to an amount that a candidate could provide to their own campaign. It means that any individual can provide up to $2,400 to the candidates campaign. It misses the mark there.

There are also some potential legal questions that have been identified. A significant question is whether it would be justifiable and fair that candidates in the same communities are receiving different treatment on an arbitrary basis. For example, an unendorsed candidate who contributes money to their own campaign has a higher contribution limit of $2,400 while other unendorsed candidates who do not contribute to their campaign have a contribution of $1,200. Because of this question, legal advice would be required.

Another question is whether this amendment could be viewed as limiting speech in elections by prohibiting candidates from receiving contributions in certain circumstances. There’s also lack of clarity. So for example, what would a candidate do if they ended up spending $1,200 but also received campaign contributions? Would they be required to return the contributions?

The proposed amendment also does not identify the consequences of contravening this rule.

So the provision really doesn’t fit within the legislative framework. It amends section 30.01 but does not account for necessary consequential amendments for other sections — or for elections after the 2018 general local elections, if that was the intention.

So for these reasons alone, we can’t support the amendment.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for her response there.

I’d like to see if I can understand where we are today. So two days ago, we had the motion brought forward by the member from Kamloops–North Thompson, a motion that initially had something to the tune of $5,000 as a potential for a self-funded campaign.

We discussed this. Obviously, there were some communication issues as to what was being debated when, and we saw this motion, literally, as we were sitting here, and had to work on the fly. There were some discussions — and with great respect and thanks, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson…. South Thompson. I do apologize. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson. It is true that they tend to sing as one voice. They clearly — North and South Thompson — support each other, and it’s good to see that in the Legislature.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: As my friend from Saanich North and the Islands says: “the Loops.” The Loopsians are very supportive here.

Coming back then. So it was modified to reflect what we were hearing here — that we didn’t know where the number was coming from. And we agreed that $2,400 was a number that seemed a little more reasonable. We clearly…. We had some support here. Not everyone in our caucus, but we felt that there was a lot of support emerging into the spirit and concept of this.

We then had a day break and had some time to reflect upon the amendment that was brought forward to us, as the minister was out of town, in Vancouver with the housing announcement, with the Prime Minister, so was unable to attend committee stage at that time.

And after some reflection, we’re now back to a position where we have the amendment on the floor. The amendment is to allow self-funded campaigns to $2,400 — or at least that’s the intent of the amendment. And I’m grateful for the clarification that the minister has, in terms of some of the issues with the amendment as written and what interpretations could be.

So my final question on this, before I decide the direction I’d like to take in terms of my vote. My understanding is the minister has formally committed to introduce regulation that captures the spirit of the intent, because she, too, has heard — like our caucus has, and members opposite had — some concern about the ability of people in, particularly, rural areas, small regions, to self-fund their campaign and not be put at a disadvantage.

A lovely example of this was mentioned by the member for Abbotsford-Mission, who somehow was being used as an example to actually argue against limiting donations, when he’s the most beautiful example of actually supporting limiting donations, because, in his case, he never funded his campaigns.

My final point then is: is it correct that the minister has committed to introduce such regulations that haven’t captured the spirit of the discussion? So that the 2018 local government elections will be subject to some regulation that will allow for increased funding by yourself to your own campaign. And that we recognize that, after that election, everything will be looked at, and there will be some reflection, using the data to move forward, as we revise legislation or regulations in the months and years ahead?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. And certainly, I’ve heard from UBCM, and I’ve heard from candidates, and we’ve certainly heard in this House about the self-funding piece, particularly for smaller communities.

I think it’s really important, and what I indicated is, that we do understand where members of this House are going and what it is they’re seeking. And in taking this approach, I think it’s important that we do make sure that regulation fits within the legal framework of the legislation and that we avoid the legal question marks that were raised by the amendment proposed by the member opposite.

So taking all things into consideration, we need to make sure that a regulation needs to fit the importance of monitoring the 2018 local elections, to gather information about the nature and extent of self-funded campaigns — not just on the contribution side, but on the expense side. This is the first time we’re doing that. I know that the members down the way really appreciate having good data, so it’ll be the first time that we’ll actually have this data, which will allow us to reflect on all of these components for local elections.

With all of that in mind, my intention will be to recommend a regulation that provides for candidates to make an additional campaign contribution of up to $1,200 in 2018 to their own campaign, with that being in addition to the regular contribution limit of $1,200, bringing the total in those circumstances to $2,400 for 2018. It provides for some equivalent authority for candidates endorsed by an elector organization, while ensuring that the total additional amount that is provided to an elector organization’s campaign through its endorsed candidates could not be more than $1,200 — again, for a total of $2,400 in 2018 in those circumstances.

What this will do, hon. Member, is that it will allow us to adjust to what we’ve been hearing, and it will allow us to do a number of things afterwards, to take a look at all the data to make sure that it’s hitting the mark. If it’s not hitting the mark, if that needs to be increased because we get feedback that that wasn’t quite enough, we can readily do that. Or if we learn that that was too much, then we can scale that back.

The other thing it does — and I think it’s really important — is that it allows to us be nimble. Government is not very nimble, generally speaking. So having it in regulation, should there be a by-election and we need to act appropriately and quickly, we can do that. I want to assure the member down the way that that is my intention.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the detailed response, and thank you to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who has brought this issue to this debate here. I am seeing here an agreement coming across party lines on this very important issue. Again, thank you to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson and thank you to the minister for responding in such an informative way.